Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience
Before posting, make sure you understand this short summary of relevant policies and advice and particularly the guideline on treating fringe theories. Also, check the archives for similar discussions. We can help determine whether the topic is fringe and if so, whether it is treated accurately and impartially. Our purpose is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but to describe them properly. Never present fringe theories as fact. If you mention specific editors, you should notify them. You may use {{subst:ftn-notice}} to do so. Deploy {{talk fringe|the fringe theory name}} to articles' talkpages under discussion. Please also notify any relevant Wikiprojects to encourage an increased visibility for the discussion.
Search this noticeboard & archives Lowercase sigmabot III will archive sections older than 20 days Additional notes: Discussion of fringe theories will only depend on coverage in reliable sources. Medicine-related claims must comply with more stringent sourcing requirements, but we also generally prefer academic sources. We are not a forum to discuss fringe theories as such. Our goal is to improve articles about them, or create new ones if needed. For concerns about neutrality in articles not about fringe theories, use the neutral point of view noticeboard. Report article content that appears to violate the no original research rule at this noticeboard. Paste {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section when your concern was addressed.
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

• Please add new entries at the bottom of the list. Thank you!

Aratta

This needs some attention. A whopping chunk of the article is devoted to unlikely-sounding "location hypotheses" relating to a place in Sumerian myth. There's a dispute between Sumerophile (talk · contribs) and Til Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs) over this section. To complicate matters, I just blocked Sumerophile for 3RR only to realise he'd spent most of today reverting, you guessed it, the socks of our old friend Ararat arev (talk · contribs). I've unblocked him ASAP with apologies but the article still needs looking at, with undue weight in mind. Moreschi (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Nearly all of the peer-reviewed, scholarly literature on Aratta that can be reliable referenced, beginning with the original translator, Samuel Kramer, is devoted to "location hypotheses" - just as with other locations given geographical references only in Sumerian literature, like Dilmun and Meluhha, etc. Anyone who researches the topic can quite easily satisfy himself of this fact, so why should wikipedia attempt to present an editor's POV instead? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

this is a clear case of "academic references only". If it's published academically, fair enough, however unlikely. If it is WP:SYN or armenianhighland.com blogcruft, remove on sight. dab (𒁳) 21:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It becomes more and more obvious to me as I look at ancient history articles that there is too much unreferenced or badly referenced (Discovery Channel, Nova, etc, let alone personal webpages) stuff. Academic references only unless there are notable alternative authors (such as in the case of some of the Egyption stuff like the Sphinx).--Doug Weller (talk) 21:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Another revert-war yesterday. I've protected the article for two weeks, but the talk page is still as fiery as ever. 81.99.113.232 (talk) 09:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Baghdad Battery

Would someone please take a look at the discussion at the bottom of the Talk:Baghdad Battery page between User:Reddi and myself where he thinks a link to a UFO website with an article on non-existent Indian texts should not be deleted. I've never run into a self-professed 'inclusionist' before. He doesn't seem to think links need justifying if he thinks they are important. He's obviously also very possessive about the article. And doesn't like what he calls 'septics'. Thanks--Doug Weller (talk) 17:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

a true antiseptic, then :p dab (𒁳) 18:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure he won't like our policies on reliable sources and external links either but tough luck. --Folantin (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I felt I needed backup as he is obviously a very experienced editor, especially compared to me! Tags all over his user page... Is that Inclusionist thing a big deal?--Doug Weller (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No. People can call themselves what they like but they still have to abide by Wikipedia policy. --Folantin (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I love that guy's userpage. That's the first time I've ever heard somebody claim that minority theories and idiosyncrasies generally are underplayed on Wikipedia! "Since skeptics (in particular, those who claim to be) and pseudoskeptics cannot accept factual writing, this forces honest contributors no platform in this project; those who are still willing to honestly contribute are attacked by the bias of these skeptics and pseudoskeptics. It only takes a few to believe something is wrong to prevent the completion of the proposed goal of Wikipedia. The proposal of Wikipedia of trying to gather what constitutes human knowledge about various subjects is besiged by those that deny and ignore facts and is in constant danger on Wikipedia. Let the reader beware of this and that the disclaimers are heeded." <eleland/talkedits> 23:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

complete failure to understand WP:UNDUE in so many words. I wonder what a pseudoskeptic is? Somebody who thinks they remain unconvinced but secretly are more credulous than they like to admit? strike that, I saw the link to Pseudoskepticism. It's a term from the Protoscience walled garden... dab (𒁳) 16:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

He's still at it by the way. I've left some remarks on his talk page but I haven't removed the link again (three reverts and all that). --Folantin (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It's worse. After a series of insults on the Talk page after I removed a rubbish source, he's now added a section of 'World Wide Web sties that were used in the construction of this article.' and put that source back in it. Looking at the history, a clear case of WP:OWNERSHIP. Also, is AnswersinGenesis considered a reliable source for an external link not on itself? ThanksDoug Weller (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say AiG is a reliable source only for Creationist opinions, but the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard might be consulted. The link here was to content they were reprinting from Creation magazine, which clearly cannot be cited as a history source. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 16:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

He's still at it. I'd say some of the other external links need checking for reliability too. --Folantin (talk) 13:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Location hypotheses of Atlantis - COI?

Can someone please look at the recent edits by Atlantis-korrekt in the light of [1] and tell me what they think? Leave it or? And while I have someone's attention, what do I do when an IP user starts calling me a Nazi on my talk page as they have twice in the last few hours? Thanks.--Doug Weller (talk) 07:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not too sure what to do with this. I removed some (perhaps unintentional?) links to problematic websites, but I have no way of evaluating the sources or content right now. The subject is definitely bordering on fringe, but it has captured the imagination of so many legitimate archeologists too, I'm not sure where to go with the evaluations. Please ask for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Archaeology. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Gently remind the IP user of WP:NPA, WP:CIV. If problems persist, try further steps in dispute resolution. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Technical analysis

The stock market equivalent of tea-leaf reading, promoted par excellence by Wikipedia. "Critics say it's wrong, but look, here are some outlying studies!" 64.231.60.239 (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The IP's right. Anyone here ever seen a broker analysing charts? An astrologer with a star-map has nothing on the level of inexplicable confidence those chaps display. Off there to crack a few heads. Relata refero (talk) 08:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Done some rewording, added cites, made the mainstream opinion clear in the lead. Hopefully the manager of grandma's pension fund will read it and re-think giving several billion dollars of small investors' savings to a firm run by loopy chartists. Really, if there's one thing that the Mantanmoreland-Bagley-Weiss business should have taught us, its that POV-pushing is inevitable in articles related to theoretical finance. Relata refero (talk) 12:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The coverage of the efficient markets hypothesis is criminally poor — the synonym for it is the Hayek hypothesis, and he isn't even mentioned. --Haemo (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right, the "theoretical background" section is unreadable. (I am not fond of thinking of EMH as the Hayek hypothesis, incidentally, partly because I was taught that the HH was a response to the Walrasian "socialist calculations" summarised in the Lange-Lerner Equations. And I bet that's a redlink too.) Relata refero (talk) 22:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, whaddya know. Someone wrote this. Never underestimate the Austrians. Relata refero (talk) 22:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Everything related to technical analysis in Wikipedia (and there is a bunch!) suffers from COI, self-interested point-of-view pushing. Since some people make money attracting customers to their "predictive services" they do not give up easily. Essentially much of it is spam. Glad to see RR and I agree on something, but I don't get the MBW reference or conclusion. Happy editing in any case. Smallbones (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I really liked your revision of the article, Relato, but wondered how long it would stay that way. It's being rapidly reverted to a more technical-analysis-friendly account. Woonpton (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, will watchlist. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"$ETHNIC warfare"

I've found a new popular outlet for testosterone-imbued ethnic nationalism.... articles on ancient warfare!

We have Celtic warfare (and Gaelic warfare), Illyrian warfare, Assyrian warfare, Military history of Iran, Ancient Macedonian army/Hellenistic armies. Not all these articles are terrible. But they need supervision. It is also clear at a glance that the same nationalisms that give us grief elsewhere result in poorer "Ancient warfare" articles. Unsurprisingly, of course. I can only state my puzzlement over the fact that Ararat arev hasn't given us a glowing account of Armenian warfare yet :) dab (𒁳) 18:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

"In massed fighting however, the Gauls' rudimentary organization and tactics fared poorly against the well oiled machinery that was the Legion."

So, where do I enlist? :) Aryaman (☼) 12:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Mr A. Arev has slipped up there, evidently :)

Illyrian warfare doesn't look so bad (surprisingly), but Military history of Iran is complete dross. We don't get many Iranian-history articles of high quality, it would seem. Pity. 81.99.113.232 (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Gaelic Warfare I noticed a while ago that German Wikipedia's section on Celtic Warfare had suffered from someone taking sections of the Europa Barbarorum mod for the game Rome Total War as gospel and faithfully copying them into Wikipedia(!) It appears from references to bronze scale armour that this could also have happened in the English version's Gaelic Warfare section. This isn't 'testosterone-imbued ethnic nationalism' however, just extreme naivety. See also Cassi for similar. Paul S (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Pseudohistory

Those of us who regularly watch this page are quick to spot pseudoscience and label it as such. We are much slower off the mark as to pseudohistory (Probably more scientists watch this page than historians). In any case, a slow boil edit war (ie it changes back and forth about once a month) is going on at the article on Robert Lomas, the author of "The Hyram Key" (basic premise for those not familiar with the book: The ancient Egyptians had ritual certain practices; The early Christians in Jerusalem followed these practices, and by the way Jesus did not die on the cross; Suppose they hid documents to this effect in the ruins of the Temple. The Knights Templars are said to have found something in the ruins of the Temple, therefore what they found were these documents. Since the Freemasons might be descendants of the Templars, the Masons are directly connected to the Ancient Egyptians.) To me this has so many suppositions and conjectures that it can only be called pseudohistory. However, attepts to categorize Lomas as a pseudohistorian and his label his work as pseudohistory are reverted. Note... the book was a best seller and helped inspire The DaVinci Code... so it is notable. Those of us arguing to call it pseudohistory are not attempting to delete the article... only to make it clear that this is not history. Some assistance by those who care about historical Fringe Theories is needed. Blueboar (talk) 00:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is even pseudohistory. Category:Fantasy writers may fit better. I mean, I do not hope anyone is suggesting any of this has anything to do with actual history. It may still be interesting as "alternate history" literature. --dab (𒁳) 07:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This actually goes to a larger issue. Currently up for review at CfD is Category:Historians of Freemasonry. I don't really care whether the category is deleted or kept (I created it, but have agreed that it should probably be deleted based on the nomination's rational). However, since being nominated, there has been a flurry of activity... those who wish to keep the category have been adding it to articles on any author who has ever written something mentioning Freemasonry, be it speculative fiction, pseudohistory, or anti-Masonic rants and exposés. They are also adding it to anyone who wrote a legitimate history of something else... but who happen to include some passing discussion of Freemasonry while doing so. This bothers me. It gives legitimacy to the works and their authors. I have removed the categorization from most of the articles added, but in several cases I have been reverted (and I don't really want to get into an edit war). I suppose the underlying question is... what qualifies someone to be called a historian... and more specifically a "Historian of Freemasonry"? Advice would be appreciated (and feel free to comment at the CfD... no pressure to vote either way). Blueboar (talk) 14:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

we should only call a "historian" somebody with an academic degree in history who publishes academically (WP:PROF). Plus ancient historians like Herodotus of course. dab (𒁳) 17:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I generally agree with dab, but here I think he's being too concerned with credentials. I'm a historian of science with an academic degree in it, but I know scientists who have published academically respectable historical studies about their discipline. I'd emphasize the places they've published as much as the formal credentials. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

September 11, 2001 attacks again

The discussion at September 11, 2001 attacks has really gone sideways and I plead for some more eyeballs there. The endless circular arguments are exhausting and wasting the time of otherwise good editors. The newest claims include:

That the US might not have been the target of the attacks, and/or the sources we have are not good enough to say the US was the intended target (UN, Al Qaida themselves etc).

That the lead must say violent destructive events in the Northeastern United States, which, by their similar nature and timing, have been presumed to be intentional and coordinated attacks. because (I suppose) the timing of the attacks might have been a coincidence or the attacks themselves accidental (presumed to be intentional and coordinated???) and that we can only refer to them as violent destructive events?!?

A user virtually guaranteeing a edit war if it's unprotected. If the article sucks, there's going to be an edit war. Unprotect it anyway

This topic is at Arbcom right now but I'm not sure if anything useful will com of it, but this endless time sink has to end sometime. It's an endless rope-a-dope that will only drive off the good editors. I haven't posted here before so if this is not the right place let me know and I'll wander off, maybe to WP:AN/I or something.

"the US might not have been the target of the attacks"... What, they were actually aiming for the Eiffel Tower and missed? (oops, sorry about that). Blueboar (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's somewhat-good evidence that the US wasn't the only target; i.e. that the four attacks in the US were supposed to be followed a few hours later by two attacks in London and one each in New Delhi and Melbourne. -- Zsero (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well sure, but they didn't happen or nor were they even attempted. RxS (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by "attempted". One of the London hijackers (assuming the story is true) confessed in open court that he and his colleagues were already at the airport waiting to board their planes when they panicked and abandoned the plan. The court took this testimony as true, and sentenced him accordingly, but of course since he admitted it it wasn't tested by cross-examination or the adversarial process. He might have been delusional or fantasising, and the court would have no real way to find that out. -- Zsero (talk) 06:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, dear. Discretionary sanctions cannot come too soon, it seems. Hurry up and close the case, ArbCom! Moreschi (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

never ask the arbcom to hurry, they'll only deliver even more shoddy work than usual. Try to route around arbcom whenever possible. dab (𒁳) 19:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

`

They're done. Discretionary sanctions in place. Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ivor Catt

Hello,

Ivor Catt is both (a) an (apparently) well-respected VLSI engineer of the 70s and 80s, and also (b) a crackpot with very strange ideas about electromagnetism, and the standard crackpot level of sourcing: lots of Catt's own web pages, zero referreed publications, zero serious citations; Catt's web pages insist that his theory is much-discussed/important/controversial/censored-by-the-establishment, but noone verifiable seems to care. This is a pretty tough thing to describe in an article while maintaining RS, OR, NPOV, and FRINGE guidelines. I think the old article did a pretty good job, but an IP editor has begun restoring the extremely pro-Catt POV. I don't have time to deal; more eyes would be welcome. Bm gub (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind doing a bit, starting with formatting references and checking that they are the most appropriate to use. I don't have a science background at all but in some ways that may be OK as I can take a distance. Before any of that, though, are we absolutely sure that the subject is notable enough to have his own article?

As I remember, Ivor Catt had an important role in the Transputer project. I forget the exact job title, but for several years his name appeared regularly in mainstream publications, though it might take some digging to find the references now. He has written several books, of which a couple seem to have been published by respectable presses. He is almost certainly notable. Cardamon (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, his computer architecture work appears to be notable and there are both scholarly and popular articles to back that up. I do not suggest deleting the whole article---just separating the self-promotion claims from the encyclopedic ones. Bm gub (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting guy with strong and radical opinions on every issue! I have added a few sourced sections on his technological contribution (WSI), as well as his views on management and justice. The sections on his theories of electromagnetism and other scientists' opinion of his theories still needs to be referenced and cleaned up. Any help will be appreciated. Abecedare (talk) 06:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Mingrelians

Please have a look at the article Mingrelians. Recently there was an edit war between user:Dauernd vs. user:Kober and user:Iberieli over whether Mingrelians should be called a South Caucasian people or whether they should be called a subethnic group of Georgians. Now despite the troublesome history of user:Dauernd, I think he may have been in the right on this one in referring to Mingrelians as a South Caucasian people as I've never heard any group of people referred to as a subethnic group. Is there even such a thing as a subethnic group? Kober and Iberieli have added some sources however their sources say that Mingrelians have mostly forgotten their native tongue and consider themselves to be Georgians. That's really not quite the same as referring to them as a sub-ethnic group. The other thing to this that the Mingrelian language is mutually uninteligible with the Georgian language. Also, within Georgia, there are many other linguistic groups which can trace there roots there for centuries and have more in common with the Mingrelians and yet are not considered a subethnic group of Georgians. For example the Laz people in Georgia speak a language that is mutually inteligible with the Mingrelian language and yet Mingrelians are considered a subethnic group but the Laz are not. To me this sounds WP:FRINGE. Previous discussion can be seen here. Your thoughts? Pocopocopocopoco (talk)01:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Your post contains so many inconsistencies that I first thought to refer you to some basic sources before challenging it. Now I’m going to assume that this is a result of your honest lack of information and not an intellectual consequence of a "divide et impera" policy which has been pursued in Georgia by its former imperial master for over 150 years.

1. What is a subethnic group?

"I've never heard any group of people referred to as a subethnic group" is not an argument. I think it is noteworthy to remind you that even the most conservative modern ethnolinguists don’t now consider a linguistic factor to be the sole determinant of an ethnic identity which is, by definition, a sum of many cultural and social traits including but in no ways limited to the primary tongue.

An increasing number of studies have been dedicated to subethnic differentiation within an ethnic group. Too bad I don't currently have Roland Breton’s excellent book on ethnolinguistic geography at hand. It includes a comprehensive review of subdivisions of ethnicity and explains why ethnic groups are not always homogeneous. However, a quick search through Google Books yields quite a few definitions of "a subethnic group". Here’s one of them:

Subethnic groups exist within dominant ethnic groups or along-side other subethnic groups of the same genera. Subethnic groups share a common culture and maintain a sense of cultural homogeneity, but they vary to the extent that one sub-group may be distinguished from another in some cultural traits. The nature of subethnic groups can be rather complicated. (Milton Kleg, 1993, Hate, Prejudice, and Racism, p. 40. SUNY Press, ISBN:079141535X)

2. Georgian ethnogenesis and subgroups

I was just wondering who are these "many other linguistic groups which can trace there roots there for centuries and have more in common with the Mingrelians and yet are not considered a subethnic group of Georgians". Can Pocopoco list them?

The present-day Georgian ethnos is composed of three main groups: 1) Georgians proper; 2) Mingrelians; 3) Svans. Their common autonym is "Kartveli" and exonym is "Georgian" or "Kartvelian". They speak three related, but still different languages which are the branches of the South Caucasian or Kartvelian family. The Georgian language has been a language of education and culture for all of these groups since the early Middle Ages, and Mignrelians and Svans are typically bilingual in Georgian as well as their own languages, Mingrelian and Svan respectively. The other language within this family, Laz, is spoken by the Laz people who mostly live in Turkey. They are linguistically more close to the Mingrelians, but unlike them, did not participate in the final stages of the Georgians' ethnic consolidation as they have been geographically and politically separated from their Georgian cousins for many centuries. Pictured is a simplified chart of the Georgian ethnogenesis which was in fact a very complex process lasting from remote antiquity through Middle Ages into the early Modern era. For a much more detailed discussion, see Toumanoff, Cyril (1967). Studies in Christian Caucasian History, pp. 50-58. Georgetown University Press; David Marshall Lang (1962), The Georgians, pp. 54-90. Frederich A. Praeger Publishers, New York; the first few chapters from William Edward David Allen (1932), A history of the Georgian people; Suny, Ronald Grigor (1994), The Making of the Georgian Nation, pp. 4-10. Indiana University Press, ISBN 0253209153.

Additional citations for Mingrelian and Svan identities:

The number of Mingrelian speakers is declining, and most Mingrelian speakers positively identify themselves as "Georgian" (Kartveli). Prof. Stephen F. Jones of Mount Holyoke College, "Mingrelians", in: David Levinson [ed., 1996], Encyclopedia of World Cultures, p. 262. University of Michigan Press, ISBN 0816118086. Online version.

The Georgian or Kartvelian nation comprises an impressively diverse set of local sub-ethnic communities, each with its characteristic traditions, cuisine, manners and dialect (or language). The Svans number about 40,000, most of whom inhabit... Prof. Kevin Tuite of Université de Montréal. The Meaning of Dæl. Symbolic and Spatial Associations of the South Caucasian Goddess of Game Animals. Université de Montréal website.

3. Political context

As it is well known, "what is only "subethnic" now can become the main politically relevant affiliation later, depending on changes in political context" (Donald L. Horowitz, 2000, Ethnic Groups in Conflict, p. 350. University of California Press, ISBN:0520227069). Therefore, the separateness of Georgian subgroups have always been promoted first in the Russian Empire, and then in early Soviet Union. Here’s a quote from the 1999 paper Towards a Soviet Order of Things: The 1926 Census and the Making of the Soviet Union by Prof. Francine Hirsch of the State University of New York referring to the opposition of Georgian intellectuals and even Communist elite (a bulk of which were, in fact, Mingrelians, and became victims of several purges such as the notorious Mingrelian Affair of 1952) to the 1926 census categories pushed for by Stalin:

The classification of the peoples of Transcaucasia was once again the most controversial topic of discussion. Georgian representatives from the Transcaucasian government complained that a number of peoples noted as separate nationalities on the official list were really tribes or religious sub-groups of the Georgian nation. They berated central authorities and experts for attempting "to break-up the Georgian nation," maintaining that the "false division" of the Georgians was reminiscent of tsarist colonial politics. The officials maintained that Adzhars were Georgians who had once been Moslems; they declared that the Soviet regime had created an Adzhar autonomous republic with the goal of promoting "Adzhar" separatism. They further argued that Mingrelian and Svan were regional names for Georgians from different localities. In fact, more than half of the people thought by ethnographers to be Mingrelians had registered themselves in the census as Georgians. Ethnographers wondered aloud whether census takers had engaged in foul play or if the results reflected the population's self-determination. The national-political stakes gave these discussions a high emotional pitch.

Most recently, the secessionist authorities in Georgia’s breakaway republic of Abkhazia have embarked on a propaganda campaign to promote separateness of Mingrelians from other Georgians. The reason is that the Mingrelian community forms the third (or perhaps even second) largest group in Abkhazia and remains overwhelmingly loyal to Georgia, thus posing a threat to the separatist regime. Even User:Pocopocopocopoco, who is a self-declared supporter of separatist movements, has once correctly noted this feature of Abkhaz political agenda.

I think the current definition of Mingrelians as a "subgroup of Georgians" is both justified and well-sourced. I failed to see any valid reason given by Pocopocopocopoco to dismiss it as a “fringe theory”. Thanks, Kober^Talk 07:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

More References from Scholarly Book by Western Authors:

The Georgian ethnic group is made up of a whole series of subgroups — the Mountain Svans, Kartlians and the west Georgian Mingrelians

The Georgians, Mingrelians and Svans are related ethnically, within Georgia there existed strong sub-ethnic or regional identities, including Ajarian, Mingrelian, Svan, Imeretian, Kakhetia, etc

within Georgia there existed strong sub-ethnic or regional identities, Adjar, Mingrelian and Svan...

Mingrelians, a sub ethnic group of the Georgian people, live mostly on the back sea coast..

Mingrelia is the home of the Mingrelians, a tribe of Georgian people who speak Megruli...

Georgian sub ethnic groups such as Mingrelians and Svans are probably direct descendants of those Colchians of the Argonauts...

And there are plenty more, its just no point going on any further, this request was a hoax by an individual who has a strong bias. Iberieli (talk) 14:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That's got me convinced. I don't really see a problem here. Moreschi (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Ditto. Blast Ulna (talk) 01:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have volumes and volumes of scholarly books on Caucasus and i can go on with references, however things like this really frustrates me, some people dont have any regards for other people's valuable time, thats all. Iberieli (talk) 14:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

"Sub-ethnic group" sounds about right. Though they may have been more separate in the past, I'd say there's certainly been a convergence between the Georgians and Mingrelians over the past century. IIRC the process was accelerated by Lavrenti Beria (himself a Mingrelian) in the 1930s. --Folantin (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, Mingrelian intellectuals of the 19th and 20th centuries such as Konstantine Gamsakhurdia, Arnold Chikobava and others played a major role in that, but this does not mean that the sense of ethnic unity had not existed before. Mingrelian and Georgian educated classes used the term "All-Iverians" to denote their kinship before the 19th century.--Kober^Talk 15:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

ethnogenesis is a gradual process, and there can be meaningful disputes as to at what point an ethnic group forms out of / splits into several groups. I am glad we have a case of a "disputed subgroup" now to compare to the Assyrians/Syriacs debacle (which is ethno(de)genesis-in-progress indeed). dab (𒁳) 16:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The same is true about Montenegrins. --Kober^Talk 16:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Kober for the very informative post above. I think the issue of subethnicity was explained very nicely however why the seemingly arbitrary nature of inclusion to the Georgian ethnicity? According to The Georgian-Abkhazian Conflict, by Alexander Krylov:

All through the Soviet period the main goal of the Georgian leadership and of the Georgian nationalist movement as a whole was the creation of a consolidated Georgian nation in the shortest possible time. With Stalin in power, when the influence of the Georgian lobby in the Kremlin was at its greatest, this policy was carried out by repressive methods. Some peoples were deported from Georgia (Greeks, Kurds and Meskhetian Turks). Others, not even related to the Kartvelians, were declared part of the Georgian tribes and along with Svans and Megrelians were quickly assimilated.

More to come. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I presume the source of your citation is an anonymous user who once replaced the Georgian-Abkhazian conflict article with an obscure text of questionable quality. The source you provided is not a WP:RS, is based upon fringe theories and reads more like a political pamphlet than an academic article. Even it does not prove why Mingrelians should not be classified as an ethnic subgroup of Georgians.--Kober^Talk 04:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The source is "The Security of the Caspian Sea Region" by Alexander Krylov edited by Gennady Chufrin published by Oxford University Press. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ita a typical Russian chauvinist blabber (pay attention to authors), no such assimilations were committed during after or since Stalin. Anyway, overwhelming majority of sources which were provided on top is enough to end this discussion. Iberieli (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Does a source become unreliable just because the authors have Russian names? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

More References, Case closed:

1. Georgians speak the – related but mutually unintelligible – Mingrelian languageas ... The existence of other sub-ethnic groups such as the Mingrelians (Ethno-Federalism and Civic State-Building Policies. Perspectives on the Georgian-Abkhaz Conflict - all 3 versions », by B Coppieters - Regional & Federal Studies, 2001)

1. Nonetheless, within Georgia there existed strong sub-ethnic or regional identities,including Ajarian, Imeretian, Kakhetian, Mingrelian and Svan. (Multinationality, Regions and State-Building: The Failed Transition in Georgia - all 3 versions », by M D Toft - Regional & Federal Studies, 2001)

1. The Svans and Mingrelians are regionally based Georgian groups (Democracy from Below? Interest Groups in Georgian Society, by SF Jones - Slavic Review, 2000 - JSTOR)

1. Mingrelians, however, continue to identify themselves as Georgian. (The Georgian language state program and its implications Friedrich Kahn - Nationalities Papers, 1995)

etc.Iberieli (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Quarter days

Page is unsourced and contains unverified material about the Pagan year. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I was looking at it earler and thought it was pretty poor. But not an interest of mine really, although on the Talk Page I've pointed out the modern quarter days.--Doug Weller (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've had a go at improving Quarter days but Cross-quarter days still carries a lot of unsourced speculation about the origins of calendars. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Cryptids

When was the last time you looked at the cryptid articles at Wikipedia? Maybe you should. I looked at three today and they were all awful:

• Mokele-mbembe
• Champ (legend)
• Living dinosaurs

The last one was so bad, I put it up for deletion.

Please, help with tagging, editing, ANYTHING!

ScienceApologist (talk) 01:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I was poking around them a while ago, and they're in pretty bad shape. Most have real trouble spelling out that the creature is a legendary or hypothetical monster — even more critical is the fact that they simply do not discriminate between different alleged "sightings" and their credibility. Criticism, or skepticism, is invariably ghettoized into a section at the end of the article. Yes, they're bad. And some, like the Thetis lake monster don't appear to be notable at all. --Haemo (talk) 01:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Many are in bad shape. For what it's worth, it looks like there isn't much management going on over there. That might be the problem. I'll try to do a little next time I get the chance in that regard, but I don't know when that'll be. John Carter (talk) 01:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey... Don't diss Champy... Some of us have acutally seen Champ... no, really. It was late July, 1984... a dead calm evening on Lake Champlain, getting on near dusk, and these three large humps (about 1 to 2 feet high) rose out of the watter and snaked back and forth in the bay in front of my house for a good minute and a half. OK... sure, it could have been beavers or otters or something ... but it sure looked like Champ at the time. I was so excited by this I had to go in and open another six pack to celebrate! True story... I'm even listed as a "sighting" in a book by a respected paleo-marine-biosomethingorother... well, a published author at least. (And the author didn't even ask about how much beer I had been drinking that night. If he didn't think that was important, why should you? sheesh!) Blueboar (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You were mentioned in a book? A real book! Surely that means you're Notable! Will you start the article or shall I? --Relata refero (disp.) 13:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL, Given the typical path here at Wikipedia, I think I could probably expand myself to several articles... let's see... "Blueboar", "Criticisms of Blueboar", "Blueboar and (name your POV religious denomination)", "Scientific views of Blueboar", "Blueboar Conspiracy Theories".... etc.  :>) Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"Blueboar in popular culture"? Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 14:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

All moved subsequently to "Allegations of..". --Relata refero (disp.) 14:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning up in progess. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Champ done. I have no idea what to do with the Congolese saurid, other than deleting the artist's impression as patently unencyclopaedic original research. I mean, a ten-thousand year old elephant-sized dinosaur, sure, I believe you. But that bilious shade of yellow?! Sorry, that needs a peer-reviewed source. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

External links on talk pages

Funny, I ran into this on Talk:Cryptozoology -- someone saying anyone who doesn't believe in these things should go to the genesispark url. The article has a huge number of external links -- too many according to guidelines, and I have no idea yet what they are like. And recently placed on Talk:Dragon "Look at The "Kent Hovind" article. His website is www.drdino.com, another good one is www.evolution-facts.org." So, are links like that on talk pages ok? Thanks.Doug Weller (talk) 11:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Second thoughts. Obviously you have to be able to talk about links on talk pages, and blogs, etc. are probably ok there just for background? So when does something become spam?Doug Weller (talk) 11:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

when it's blatant spam, remove it. When it's part of a bona fide discussion, no problem. (WP:UCS). Also, the google ranking algorithm knows well to make a huge difference between Wikipedia article namespace and talkpage namespace. Nobody gains much by spamming talkpages. dab (𒁳) 14:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

To my mind, a link becomes spam when it is placed in an article where it only has a tangential connection to the article's topic. Blueboar (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

When such links are used to promote the website and as advocacy, their presence should be questioned. If there is content that is relevant to the article, then specific quotes of that content, with the link, are another matter. -- Fyslee / talk 14:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Omar Khadr

I'd appreciate if a few of you would take a look at Omar Khadr when you have a chance, I'm trying to get some non-Canadian, non-American points-of-view on the subject (face it, both Canada and the US are heavily biased on this person), because we've got one editor who's claiming the article has serious NPOV discussions and is angry...

• because we don't discuss the fact that his mother believes homosexuality is wrong due to her religion (so does pretty much every Christian priest, should we include that in the article of all priests, and more disturbingly, people who have priests in their family?)
• that lawyers are "sleazy"
• the completely WP:OR theory that Khadr might try to denounce his family as a criminal defense (he hasn't, so why should we invent defenses?)
• that the phrase "is the son of an al-Qaeda financier" should be the opening sentence, even though the Ahmed Said Khadr article is quite clear that those are unproven allegations against Khadr, so his father's notoriety belongs in Omar's "Early life/family" section,not in the opening sentence.
• He believes it is wrong to refer to the "the Canadian Khadr family" because "there are other families in Canada who probably have the same name". (Wow, the Kennedy family must be in trouble!)
• we won't include the fact that his school in Canada has the Statement of Purpose which includes "family-oriented" which he believes means that al-Qaeda was allowed to influence the school
• similiarly, argues that although the school is "accredited as an independent secondary school with the Ontario Ministry of Education", we should independently question that claim in the article.
• "the attitudes presented are not consistent with social values presented to children in Canadian classrooms at the primary level." (one of the stranger complaints)
• on a similar note, that we cannot identify Khadr as Canadian if he has anti-Western views
• seems to be a young troll, of the kind who delights in speaking about "reasonable in a free and democratic society" and "provisions of the European Convertion on Human Rights" justify his trolling. Alternatingly claims to have a Masters Degree in whichever topic is being discussed, international law, even software engineering...great fun, these trolls.

Basically, we have some legitimate conversation ongoing about NPOV and trying to make sure the article conforms, but it's being made troublesome by a single editor who seems intent on using the article as a WP:COATRACK to rant about Muslims being neanderthals - and would appreciate a neutral look at the talk page. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 17:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Superrelativity

While this term is somtetimes used to denote extensions to relativity that could lead to a unified theory with quantum mechanics, the things mentioned in the article on Superrelativity are of a very questionable nature. It seems like the page is just a promotion for some pseudo-science theory. The page warrants a review and a note identifying it as a Fringe theory.

Has no real sources. Nominated for deletion. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:History of astrology

A user has posted at Talk:History of astrology in the section Outdated And Inaccurate who apparently wishes to rewrite the whole article to make Ancient Egypt the origin of astrology, while quoting the American Federation of Astrologists as saying it started in Babylonia. He's rounded up a series of what he thinks are facts to create what looks like a synthesis on which to base his argument for rewriting the article. Am I right in thinking it is basically OR? From everything serious I can find, astrology came to Egypt sometime in the first millennium bce with the Greeks. Ironically, I have been trying to fix some articles which discuss Egyptian astrology, getting rid of for instance claims for 4200 bce star charts (nonexistent), astrological pyramids, etc. The user, Big-dynamo, seems to have no history on Wikipedia (I've just noticed) so he may have no clue about Wikipedia policies - I'll add a note to him about where to find it. Thanks.Doug Weller (talk) 06:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The origins of classical astrology lie in Iron Age Babylonia ("Chaldea"). Of course there some fragments hinting at an older (Bronze Age) history of people watching the stars, but that's without any sort of direct influence on later history. dab (𒁳) 10:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Barabbas

Has serious issues. The article is apparently hostage to fringe theories that Jesus and Barabbas were the same person or something like that (I didn't read all of it). --dab (𒁳) 20:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed some clear OR - phrases like 'stands to reason', etc, with no references--Doug Weller (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Before. After. Although I've cut all the nonsense, the article really needs writing in accordance with better sources. Some space should be devoted to this idea that Jesus and Barabbas were one and the same, since it appears to be a popular idea among the hordes of those with new ideas about the Bible, but not two-thirds of the article. Moreschi (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

thank you, gentlemen. A fringebuster barnstar to both of you :) dab (𒁳) 19:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Watchlisted in case the material comes back... --Relata refero (disp.) 13:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Michael Behe

In this set of several edits, User:JohnJacobs User:Jacobsjohn - sorry! crafts a rant about the atheist conspiracy suppressing Intelligent design. He then editwars briefly: [2]

Today, he continues. Twice as an IP: [3] [4] and thrice as himself. [5] [6] [7]

Some quotes from his very special version:

“ Behe's hypothesis of intelligent design has been rejected by the many scientists and even characterized as pseudoscience by certain members of the scientific community with a strong atheistic bias. ”

“ ...which was received skeptically by many in the scientific community, and rejected outright by scientist with a overt atheistic bias. The most fundamentalist of the atheistic scientists even asserted that Behe's hypothesis, research and examples were based only on a refined form of "argument from ignorance", rather than any demonstration of the actual impossibility of evolution by natural processes. ”

“ Outside the scientific community, there are those who wish to aggressively combat any possibility of a scientific debunking of evolution. Such proponents of Darwinism are usually not well-equipped to challenge Prof. Behe's hypothesis on irreducible complexity, or the theory of Intelligent Design more generally, with credible scientific research or with scientific methods of argumentation, therefore they have tended to heavily rely on various judicial pronouncments in high-profile court battles between creationists and atheists to weigh in on this fascinating frontier in scientific discovery. ”

And yet all his edit summaries say that he's removing POV. God help us all. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've protected the page on the right version, probably a better option than blocking for now. Will add to my watchlist. Moreschi (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it stopped hm from Vandalising Michael Behe, though he did go on to vandalising User_talk:Shoemaker's Holiday with fake warnings. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm really sorry, I wrote the wrong username as I was thinking of the song. I've corrected it now. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Definitely needs attention, but not touching it myself, and I recommend that anyone who does takes great care. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Armia Krajowa

Is addition of claims about Armia Krajowa committing attrocities against non-Polish population and collaborating with the Nazis resulting in non-neutral lead with undue/fringe claims? Comments appreciated here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm examining this. First, the comparison one editor makes showing the Wehrmacht and the Red Army have no criticism in their article leads is a good one.

Second, I've examined the source [8] supposedly backing the following claim in the article lead: "The Armia Krajowa having at times cooperated with the Nazi forces against the Soviets,[reference to source inserted here] and due to its ties with the Polish government in exile, was viewed by the Soviet Union as an antagonistic force, which led to increasing conflict between AK and Soviet forces both during and after the war". The source shows this is back-to-front: "“Stankevich’s reference to the colloboration of the underground, specifically the AK with the Germans, is not entirely without foundation. Pressed by the Soviet partisans, the Germans in the Nowogródek and Wilno areas offered AK units a deal that some of them simply could not refuse: arms and provisions in exchange for antipartisan warfare against the Soviets. Moreover, as we shall see shortly, at this time the Soviet partisans were under orders to liquidate the AK forces. These were, therefore, purely tactical, short-term arrangements and did not constitute the type of ideological collaboration evidenced in the Vichy régime or in Quisling’s Norway.” In other words, some units of the Polish AK in Belorussia accepted supplies from the Germans because the Soviets were already trying to liquidate them. As the linked source says: "...the local AK commanders in Belorussia considered, with good reason, both Germany and the Soviet Union as the enemy". It's also clear that it is undue weight to refer to these "purely tactical, short-term arrangements" by a few units in Belorussia, which were condemned by the AK's central command, in the lead of a general Wikipedia article on the AK. --Folantin (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

In addition to that - judging from Anthony Beevor's excellent book Berlin: The Downfall 1945, Stalin was obsessed with wiping out Armia Krajowa, despite its status as an Allied Force. Members of AK arrested by the NKVD were given the choice of either a Siberian gulag or the Red Army. The Warsaw Revolt that the AK had launched against the Germans was described as a "criminal act of anti-Soviet policy". Beria called the AK "fascist", and such unjustified terminology was used to justify very harsh measures against AK soldiers. Under such circumstances, very occasional instances of AK soldiers collaborating with the Germans are a) understandable, and b) not worthy of a place in the lede. Moreschi (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is the right forum for this, but anyway.

The comparison between the Wehrmacht and the AK doesn't quite stand up; like all partisan forces, the AK's relations with civilians are more central to their story than is the case for regular armies like the Wehrmacht.

The point about collaboration is also interesting, but forgive me if my POV-meter goes off when I hear quotes in an article like "the honor of AK as a whole is beyond reproach". I note the quality of the references suddenly deteriorates just around that point, as well.

Not that there's much that can be done there. Given that all our Eastern Europe articles appear to be composed of people defending Wikipedia from the looming Soviet menace, its a pretty hopeless case. My long, patient and quite fruitless discussions over at Denial of the Holodomor, also known as the worst case of synthesis sourced to community newsletters on Wikipedia, has certainly demonstrated that. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"all our Eastern Europe articles appear to be composed of people defending Wikipedia from the looming Soviet menace". Well, if you're going to generalise from your experience on the Denial of the Holodomor article, I could certainly generalise from my experience editing Central/Eastern European pages and say that certain of the Russian nationalist/Soviet nostalgic editors are some of the worst POV-pushers around. Or maybe we should assume good faith and put it down to ignorance. For instance, we had a History of Russia Featured Article with three sizeable paragraphs about post-Soviet Russia and not one mention of Chechnya. Also, we have people still pushing (in the 21st century) the idea that the Nazis were responsible for the Katyn massacre (now that is WP:FRINGE). Ivan the Terrible was a nice guy, the Democratic Republic of Georgia never existed, Lenin gave votes to women (to vote for whom?) etc. etc. I suspect something of the kind is going on here too, although statements such as "the honor of AK as a whole is beyond reproach" are hardly "encyclopaedic". These cases are best treated on an individual basis. --Folantin (talk) 09:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I never generalise :). The truth is, however, that the Georgia article says "the dream existed briefly" or something when referring to the DRG, that the Katyn article doesn't have any "Nazis did it" stuff in it that I can see, and so on. Seems to me the problem in terms of article outcomes isn't Soviet nostalgists. (Naturally, since I'm not looking at the inner workings of how those articles get there, I shouldnt assume there aren't any around, just that they're being justifiably ignored.)

I see your point about Russian nationalists and Chechnya, but that wasn't what I was talking about. I was talking about the tendency to write history while emphasising the Noble Suffering of the Nation. Problematic all over (see Revolt of 1857, our incomparable coverage of all aspects of 1920s Palestine and the like), but reaching truly absurd levels in EE articles. Of course, another section where unless there are wholesale topic bans, no form of order will ever be restored. Amnesties and this lacklustre enforcement doesn't seem to be cutting it. --Relata refero (disp.) 10:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"Seems to me the problem in terms of article outcomes isn't Soviet nostalgists". I wouldn't be too sure about that. I simply gave up on the History of Russia and Russia articles. I'm amazed the former got FA status without any mention of Chechnya and was allowed to remain that way for years (or maybe I shouldn't be given my experience of the GA and FA processes). There's a major problem with WP:RS too: a lot of the Russian editors seem to think they can source all their stuff from 19th century Russian history books.

We have a problem with "travelling circuses" in which editors of one nationality go round articles about their designated enemies trying to "get one over" on their rivals. In this particular instance we probably have an example of Russian (and other?) editors trying to stick it to the кичливый лях with a bit of WP:UNDUE. No doubt you can find examples of the reverse.

"another section where unless there are wholesale topic bans, no form of order will ever be restored. Amnesties and this lacklustre enforcement doesn't seem to be cutting it". This isn't the place, but we really need a centralised debate about the whole national/ethnic edit wars problem. There seems no will to fix it. This "working group" [9] has been meeting in camera for two months with no visible results, so maybe it's time to have an open "meta-debate" somewhere on Wikipedia. --Folantin (talk) 10:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Pushkin. If he'd died ten years earlier, what a liberal hero he'd have been. Conversely, imagine Byron living ten years longer and writing odes to Wellington. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough, Mickiewicz and Puskhin remained friends after that. Wiktor Weintraub, writing about Mickiewicz's anonymous French obituary of the Russian poet (signed un ami de Pouchkine), says: "This remarkable essay is distinguished not only by a fine appreciation of Pushkin's work but also by a subtle and compassionate understanding of Pushkin's difficult position vis-à-vis tsardom. Not a word is said of Pushkin's anti-Polish poems". --Folantin (talk) 11:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

He made such friends, didnt he? According to the Times, Pyotr Vyazemsky said "Go and hymn the government for taking such measures if your knees itch and you feel an irresistible urge to crawl with the lyre in your hands" after he read the Polish poems. And yet he asked for and got Pushkin's beloved desk and trademark waistcoat after AP died. OK, really off-topic now. :) --Relata refero (disp.) 12:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's off-topic but, by coincidence, over the past few days I've been thinking of doing something on the Pushkin-Mickiewicz relationship (maybe beefing up the Dziady and The Bronze Horseman articles), so this is all of interest - to me at least.

With regards to general national/ethnic edit war issues (which don't have a place on the Fringe Theories Board), I've thought about experimenting with hosting an informal debate (for the time being in my userspace here [[10]). Everybody with an interest in the matter is welcome to contribute. --Folantin (talk) 12:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments so far. I think that the collaboration is dealt with - nobody has been raising this issue recently - but the atrocities still generate some discussion. If you could clearly address those issues, it would be much appreciated.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Barry Fell

User Cadwallader thinks the Barry Fell article is not NPOV. He has heavily edited it, putting in a large section from a self-published web page with claims I have checked in any case and seem to have no weight or evidence behind them. Based on that self-published site, he writes "scientific inquiry proved him correct on the one point where academia had published a critique and defamation of him as a "fraud"." See the talk page where I discuss this. He has also added "The West Virginia Archaeologist, which claims to be a peer reviewed journal, published a few other articles critical of Fell, including one by Edo Nyland, a physics professor, who agreed the inscription was Ogam but translated it in the Basque language as a story about a failed buffalo hunt. Though Oppenheimer and Wirtz were Washington D.C. attorneys with no formal expertise in petroglyphs or ancient scripts, their "expert" rebuttal is still being used to discredit Fell today[5]." Maybe the magazine claims to be peer reviewed, I don't know. What I do know is that Edo Nyland is only quoted in the magazine, he is not the author of an article, and the sentence beginning with 'though' is editorial. Note that Barry Fell himself has no formal expertise in anything but marine biology. I see Til Eulenspiegel has also joined in. I'm not sure where to go from here, but the Pyle stuff should be removed I believe as failing WP:RELIABLE but obviously Til Eulenspiegel and Cadwallader don't see it that way.

Have made some edits to the article but it continues to be sadly lacking in sources. It would be useful if someone could verify that the West Virginia Archaeologist is a peer-reviewed academic journal. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've found some more articles to use as sources but I'm not sure about West Virginia Archaeologist. But I doubt that articles are sent to archaeologists outside West Virginia to review before publication.Doug Weller (talk) 13:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Do authors have to send their articles to a certain geographic location to be reviewed by their own peers? What if we decide that all articles will have to be sent to Moscow and approved there, in order to be considered "peer reviewed"? This is the problem with using terms like "peer reviewed" to game the NPOV policy about mentioning all significant views, whenever you have an argument like "Our books that say ABC are okay, but your books that say XYZ are not, and may not even be mentioned, or treated neutrally." (Note there are many such situations where "our" books say this and "your" books say the opposite, but usually we do not try to play judge between them, and instead we usually end up simply stating what both, or all, published schools of thought say. Since ones "peers" are generally authors within one's own school of thought, of course they can all usually claim to be "peer reviewed", so this term can be more ambiguous than useful for NPOV.) 70.105.31.77 (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

An academic journal is a peer-reviewed scholarly periodical, usually published by one of the large major academic publishing houses. Research articles are sent before publication to independent reviewers who have a good background in the subject and are nearly always academics in universities other than the one where the authors work. They may also publish non peer-reviewed material: editorials, book reviews, articles by non-academics such as professional practitioners, notices of research in progress. Sounds we cannot establish that WVA comes into this category. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

New project on hermetism

I've just noticed that there's a new WikiProject which has placed its banner on the Talk:Hermeticism page, among others, related to "Hermetism". We don't have any articles on the subject yet, though. We did have such an article earlier, which was deleted and turned into a redirect as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hermetism. Is there a chance in the eyes of the rest of you that this project, which to date has only its founder as a member, could be counterproductive? John Carter (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It's probably more likely to be useless than detrimental. Hermeticism is a perfectly valid topic, of course, and it seemingly gave birth to Rosicrucian ideas. But WikiProjects with such small valid topic areas are unlikely ever to be very active. I can't see how it could cause problems - just let it die a natural death. If malignant activity actually does start, we can deal with it then. Moreschi (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well let's just keep an eye on the material in User:King Vegita/Hermeticism and other thought systems in case some of that material goes where it shouldn't. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean, like, maybe, regular article space? Like it's just been moved into? Anyone who knows more about this than me, and that won't take much, believe me, is more than welcome to see if any of its contents do cross undue weight lines. I can't be sure myself, but I can't rule out the possibility that at least some of it does. John Carter (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, dear God. I admit to thinking he might start putting bits of it into other articles, I hardly envisioned such ambition...

Another tiresome AfD in the future, I suspect. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking at it more closely. I think there might not be a case for AfDing on the basis of wholesale synthesis, but I'm still unhappy. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hermetism is back. Lead says "Hermetism is part of the third pillar of Western culture which provides a balance between Greek rationality and biblical faith." --Relata refero (disp.) 23:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed that, but I'm still unhappy with the tone. What's with this?

“ It is hard to trace the Hermetic texts back all these millennia because of an event in 391 CE. In Alexandria, a woman named Hypathia, an initiate into the Hermetic Mysteries, took on the growing creed of Christianity head on. She had convinced the people of Alexandria that the beliefs of Christianity were all of pagan origin as well as that the miracles of Jesus of Nazareth were available to all by demonstrating the natural laws behind them. [19] Though her murder didn't take place until 415 CE, it is an example of why the event in 391 CE happened. In that year, her works, along with most of the Hermetic texts, perished when the Great Library of Alexandria was burnt to the ground by the Romans. ”

The logic has passed me by. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 23:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The author seems to be alleging the original texts were in the Alexandria library, and that without them we can't judge Hermetism's age. I think such a statement would definitely need sourcing, don't you? Also, a few other ideas here. Britannica refers to "Hermeticism" as being a "modernist poetic movement...", so I guess the differentiation between belief in the Corpus Hermeticum and Hermeticism could be a reasonable one. The secion Hermeticism#History states "Hermes is usually equated with the Egyptian god Thoth", citing Abel and Hare, a clearly biased source. I have never heard of any such "equating" of the two in any mythological spheres, so I think that section clearly qualifies as reflecting a nonstandard POV. I also note that only two of the sources cited, Van den Broek and Yates, are from what strike me as necesarily reliale, not knowing anything about Holmes Publishing. Hall is clearly himself not necessarily objective. On the basis of all this, I think that there probably is basis for at least challenging the bias of the article. And I think that there is probably just cause at this point to challenge the Portal:Hermetism, as it only has 22 articles, and a portal should have at least 30 articles to sustain it, as per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Warriors. And I could see, maybe, someone challenging the project itself, as having only one listed member and being a POV pushing effort. But I'm going to have to search for sourcing for all this, and that won't be easy. John Carter (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The page was moved back by User:SynergeticMaggot and I have not had time to rewrite the entire thing. I did establish notability and the difference from Hermeticism. The article was originally deleted on the basis that it was a term only used by Manly Palmer Hall and that thesis has been disproven. However, The history section does require an entire rewrite, which I planned to do soon, using much more verifiable sources. Feel free to do with that section what you will. KV(Talk) 17:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, blimey

Right, I've gone hacking at Hermetism with an axe, removing everything sourced to the works of Manly P. Hall, a raving crank with some very interesting theories regarding Atlantis. You can look that up in your spare time :) Who knew that Plato was a Hermetist, and that Judaism started off as Hermetism?

Other so-called reliable sources for this page included Israel Regardie (Moses was a Hermetist!), and the mysterious "Dr. M. Doreal". I Googled him with entertaining results (LOL!)

I've also removed everything sourced to Kybalion, which I didn't think really counted as reliable source either. What this has left us with is a small minority of material that might be acceptable and the remainder, which is primary-sourced to the Corpus Hermeticum.

What we've got here is an ancient occultish cult of the Greek god Hermes, about which reliable data is very sketchy, that later inspired a whole bunch of (notable) secret societies/pseudo-religious groups/whatever in time of the Renaissance and afterwards. This in turn has been picked up by our friends the New Agers, and, ah, developed from there. What really needs to happen is for Hermetism and Hermeticism to be merged - there's no real reason to have two different articles on the original cult and its more modern descendants, not when reliable data on the ancient cult of Hermes seems so hard to come by. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

ahem, how is "Hermetism" different from Hermeticism? there was a deletion debate on this in August 2006, and the result was "delete and redirect". Also note Hermetism, Hermeticism and other thought systems. --dab (𒁳) 19:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably no difference. It's perfectly reasonable to have the article on the ancient cult and more modern descendants under one title. But...oh my God...I just noticed the charming essay Hermetism, Hermeticism and other thought systems. I don't have the strength for this one. Can someone else clear out the rubbish? And whatever else is lurking in King Vegita (talk · contribs)'s contributions? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Did nobody listen when I was whining about this earlier?? --Relata refero (disp.) 20:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I looked briefly into this, and while "Hermetism" does seem to be a term used in the scholarly literature, it doesn't seem to have a different meaning than "Hermeticism". So I think we should observe the result of the AfD and delete/redirect. At a quick glance, Hermetism, Hermeticism and other thought systems looks like a mass of OR/SYNTH. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I looked into it earlier, with a view to an AfD, as I say above. Unfortunately there are differences from the Hermetism that was deleted, and it doesn't seem outright SYNTH either. The original Hermetism deletion was because it relied excessively on Manly Hall. Now a great deal is sourced also, as are key points in the "comparative" article, to Gnosis and Hermeticism: from Antiquity to Modern Times by some people named de Broek (who's emeritus in the history of Christianity at Utrecht) and Hanegraaff,, which doesn't seem like it can be dismissed out-of-hand. The other reference that supports some key points and might be dubious is a reprint of something that appeared in Gnosis: A Journal of Western Inner Traditions, which doesn't appear to have been peer-reviewed. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, though, at one point the Corpus Hermeticum was supposed to have been written by a contemporary of Moses, and inspiration for both Jesus and Plato. Then old Casaubon had to put the boot in by proving that they weren't written until several centuries AD. John Carter (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. But de Broek and Hanegraaff's material, that was at Hermetism, can just as well go at Hermeticism. Despite the partial rewrite there's no real justification for two articles on what is essentially the same subject (once the New Age crap is snipped away). Hermetism and Hermeticism are basically synonyms, and what negligible difference there is can be explained at Hermeticism. Ultimately it doesn't really matter too much what the article is called, just so long as we don't have one decent article and a POV fork. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Hermetism now. We can keep Hermetism if we make it into an article on the origins of Hermeticism in the early centuries CE. The problem isn't with the topic itself, it's with the esotericist / new agey nonsense that it attracts. The Book of Thoth: "...Members of this movement often suggest that the Book of Thoth has been positioned beneath the paws of the Sphinx for some 12,000 years." dab (𒁳) 07:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Do we agree that the whole series of articles belong to the field of history of religion? If so, perhaps the first step should be to agree a periodization. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Dispute over edits made on Robert Bauval, Grahan Hancock, Great Sphinx of Giza, Giza pyramid complex and Giza pyramid complex articles

In December last year, a user Creigs1707 added material to thy above articles on his own research.[11] This was subsequently removed by myself and others -- another users's edit summary read "rm uncritical (self?)-promotion of a source, per WP:NOR and WP:COI)". Creighton has now emailed me and when he isn't calling me a Nazi he says he is going to post them again- and if removed, again and again and again. I have explained that he can't reference his own site and he replied that he has been published on Graham Hancock's website and Atlantis Rising Magazine (issue 65), Alternate Perceptions Magazine (issue 113). I the forthcoming edition of the book "You Are Still Being Lied To" and Nexus Magazine. Nexus is probably acceptable as a source, but I'm not sure about the others. Or about how it works when an editor is writing about his own ideas. Any comments would be of help when he decides to restore his edits, and I won't be around a lot after Friday for over a week. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 14:09, 9 Apr 2008

Nexus is not acceptable as a source for articles on archaeology. I'll have a look at the other situations too. thanks for raising this. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure a "suppressed news" magazine is acceptable as a source on anything. --Relata refero (disp.) 17:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Watchlisted. --Relata refero (disp.) 17:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Am I right in thinking that an editor would normally be permanently banned if shown to have called another editor a "Nazi" in an email? Itsmejudith (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Doubt it. WP:NPA doesn't say anything about off-wiki attacks, for good reason - its a slippery slope. Even if the attack was on-wiki a first offence wouldn't get you a ban, I think. (Besides, depending on whom you listen to, WP:CIVIL is under constant assault or WP:CIVIL is being over-aggressively policed, so I just keep out of it.) --Relata refero (disp.) 18:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

If the email was sent using the Wikipedia email function, a temporary block, yes - if the editor knew about the relevant policies. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a Wikipedia email function? Anyway, he didn't use it. I don't know when he plans to reinstate his edits, he didn't say but he's been emailing me all day (partially about another issue). I'm not bothered at the Nazi bit.Doug Weller (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for replies. At any rate, it's not very nice, and the editor seems to need some very patient explanations about WP policies and customary forms of address. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, on the plus side, these things are like fringier than fringe, so I'm not super-concerned. --Haemo (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

What, You Are Still Being Lied To doesn't sound mainstream?

The Great Pyramid of Giza article looks a lot cleaner of fringy speculation than I remember, mainly thanks to User:Secisek's decision to move construction theories to a daughter article. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree abou the GP article. User:Secisek was a great help. When I first read it a month or so ago, User:Thanos5150 had heavily over some time rewritten it, adding some OR as well, so all the mainstream stuff was written in 'doubting' manner with lots of Schoch thrown in. He got fed up with my changes and calling him on some of the fringe stuff and left, which made it easier for some good work to be put into it. I still want to put some stuff in about the exploration. I've got the resources but am going to the States to visit family, so that will have to wait.Doug Weller (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Pope Michael

User:Nvyslsnp thinks David Bawden is the pope and is using the article as a blog, etc.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear God.

Its true. He was elected Pope by six conclavists, including himself and his parents. Where does one start?

Working on it now. Relata refero (disp.) 04:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Better. --Relata refero (disp.) 04:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Good job. He may have backed off on the blogging, looks like he's just resorted to linkspamming.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a lot of self-publicity to me, what is the justification for having his blog as an external link since we don't normally allow blogs as links?Doug Weller (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It more clearly shows him as a nutter? Don't know really.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Links to blogs are permitted if they are those of a "recognized authority" as per WP:EL. I'm guessing the subject's blog is written by the world's leading authority on his church, so I guess it could technically qualify as relevant. John Carter (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess that makes sense. The whole thing is self-publicity as much as anything else anyway.Doug Weller (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well "Pope Michael" is definitely Fringe... so the first thing that needs to be worked on is establishing that he and his claims have been "referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents." At the moment, this is not the case. Blueboar (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

He's not up there with Emperor Norton I, is he? --Folantin (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Not even close. But the last paragraph of David Bawden#Sedevacantist criticism of 'Pope Michael' indicates chapters in at least two books, presumably somewhat reliable, and references to those and other mentions elsewhere do seem to me to be possibly enough to establish notability, if barely. Certainly, the article did withstand a deletion debate before. I would definitely question whether he would be worth a link on the main Roman Catholic Church page based on WP:Undue weight, and I do personally question the amount of material relating to papal succession and such in this article, but the subject seems to meet the minimum requirements of notability. I do think the biographical content relating to the subject himself could definitely merit improvement, if sources can be found, though. But no way is this fellow even close to being in the league as the estimable Norton I. John Carter (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Egyptians

We get some standard, but apparently rather severe, nationalist antiquity frenzy at this article. More eyes are welcome. dab (𒁳) 08:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

whoah, a bad case. Some admin needs to chastise Tammoor (talk · contribs) a little bit, and the responsible party appears to be Zerida (talk · contribs), who already began the standard procedure of outing my nefarious history of ... cleaning up articles affected by nationalist nonsense. I have to be off anyway, but it would also be nice if I didn't have to fix this all by myself. dab (𒁳) 09:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

On it. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Also Bayoumi (talk · contribs). We currently have duplicating material at Egypt and Egyptians. The length of the identity section at "Egypt" is probably unncessary. It should be cut down to one paragraph with a link to "Egyptians" for further reading. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

yes -- we need to be clear on the scope of the Egyptians article. There are several possibilities, but the article needs to be clear about it. It cannot announce one thing and then discuss another. The page could also be a disambiguation page between Demographics of Egypt, Ancient Egyptians (History of Ancient Egypt) and Copts. I am not saying it needs to be that, but these are the {{main}} articles it needs to accommodate. The "Identity" section I find more at home in an Egyptians article than in Egypt, the article on the country. I created a National identity of Egyptians redirect. This can be a section redirect to wherever the topic is addressed, or even be made a standalone article. The Pharaonism substub probably also needs redirection. dab (𒁳) 09:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

no improvement yet, responsible user insists on ignoring the issue and (predictably) is trying to politick his way out of it by making noise about "personal attacks". Help, please? --dab (𒁳) 08:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I got sidetracked to Greeks. Will return and have a look shortly. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Dean Radin

Dean Radin. To read this article, you'd think this guy was the smartest guy ever to live. Not a hint of the basic issues he has had. Please help. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, perhaps Brian David Josephson could do with a sentence or two of criticism? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 10:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It gets worse. See Stargate Project. This may be useful.[12]. I'm away with intermittent access for a while now, but I may look at these again when I get back.Doug Weller (talk) 11:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone is objecting to criticism of Dean Radin (well, to anything from a skeptical publication). I'd like to find some other references as well, but have had no luck yet.Doug Weller (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories, again

Currently, on 9/11 conspiracy theories there has been some discussion regarding the views of a Canadian mathematician and conspiracy theorist, Alexander Dewdney, who claims that it was impossible for the cell phone calls which occurred on 9/11 to have taken place, and that they were faked following Flight 93 being shot down. However, User:WLRoss has been trying to present a very different version than this in the article — you can see the comparison here. In the first version, the sourcing is to this Macleans article, and there is additional information about phone calls cited to the New York Times included. In the second version, the sourcing is to Dewdney's study here at a 9/11 Truth website, and to the primary views of another conspiracy theorist here. In terms of content, the first version discusses Dewdney's study, then his views that the calls were faked after Flight 93 being shot down. It then discuss a concurring conspiracy theorist, who agrees with his assessment. Finally, it cites industry experts who state that cell phones can work in all stages of an aircraft flight. The second version presents only Dewdney's study, and omits his other views about the phone calls. It also omits the industry expert's opinion entirely.

So, far, in this discussion on the talk page, the arguments have been made against the first version are that:

• "Dewdney's conspiracy beliefs are irrelevant" and "make him sound like a crackpot".
• "The paragraph should concentrate on the study not on his own irrelevant views as the study stands by itself."
• "The new sentences that have been added are misleading as because no one disputes that there is a chance but the source implies ALL cell calls have a HIGH chance of connecting which is incorrect in light of actual studies and this implication makes the addition POV and it needs to be deleted.
• "Dewdney's study is relevant because it is a study and backed by other sources, but his own views are not notable"
• "The Macleans source you quote is a hit piece that has factual errors that even cursory fact checking would have fixed (ie:it's not a RS)"
• "Your version is clearly cherry picking in an attempt to debunk what is probably the only 911 fact that is undisputably true which is that cell calls are next to impossible"

In favor, I have argued that the Maclean's source is the only one which presents either the study or his views and notable or relevant, and no other reliable sources have been so presented. Selectively choosing which of Mr Dewdney's views to include, or not include, based on the "crackpot"-ness of them is biased editing, and is designed to give readers a false impression about who conducted the study, and what he believes about the phone calls. Furthermore, it omits information on disputes on this subject is because it disagrees with a fact that the WLRoss believes is "undisputably true".

In other words, it's a run of the mill case of selectively picking and choosing which parts of a person's views on a subject you wish to display, in order to present their opinions in the best possible light. In addition, it removes criticism (or dispute) which gives the false impression that the views expressed are undisputed, or correct. I'm bringing this here because I think we need more eyes on this subject, and more voices in the mix. --Haemo (talk) 08:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

well, I agree with you in general, but this is, after all, an article about crackpot theories. Nobody is going to take serious any claim in it. I suppose this falls under "Moreschi's item #44". dab (𒁳) 09:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

But I think the point is that we're deliberately not telling anyone that this study was carried out by a conspiracy theorist. Instead, he being portrayed as a mathematician and professor who just happens to have done a study. That's the opposite of Item #44 — it would be like discussing JZ Knight as a "CEO and Author" rather than a Ramtha-channeling medium when talking about "What the Bleep do we know?". --Haemo (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

we are "not telling anyone" that the author of a theory expounded on an article clearly labelled "conspiracy theories" is a conspiracy theorist? This is where I suggest you should allow for some intelligence on the part of the reader. But again, I am not opposed to your revision, I am just saying it's less than crucial. dab (𒁳) 16:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Kurgan hypothesis

I created this article back in 2005[13], and it has seen a troubled history since, mostly due to the exploits of the likes of Rokus01 (talk · contribs) and WIN (talk · contribs). There have been good additions, but it has been tagged for a rewrite for some time. This isn't very urgent, but it appears that the disordered state gives rise to further deterioration. There is one editor apparently bent on treating the hypothesis as a work of art by Gimbutas without any truth value (as in, not falsifiable, hence art), and consequently to be treated like an unfinished symphony or something, while it is in fact the mainstream hypothesis (or class of hypotheses) for PIE origins. I am not sure how to approach this. The "Criticisms and qualifications" is terrible, but it contains valid content. As I said, this isn't a red-hot topic of edit wars, but I feel it will only get worse if an effort isn't made to put the article back on its feet. dab (𒁳) 18:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

"Kurgan hypothesis" of origin certainly was "mainstream" within the Soviet Union, which actively pushed it for all it was worth, and sought to use ostracisation tactics on any who said different... It's still just a hypothesis, with no actual records of any kind to substantiate it... 70.105.57.250 (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, just as PIE itself is just a "hypothetical" language. No records for that either, really. Still, it's widely accepted as having existed. Your logic doesn't really cohere. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

How mainstream is the Kurgan hypothesis outside Russia?Doug Weller (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Pretty mainstream. There are respectable, albeit minority, alternatives (as well as some not-so-respectable alternatives). The page should reflect this. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 10:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Nonwithstanding the anon's claim above, the Kurgan theory is not a "Russian" or "Soviet" theory. If anything, it's a Lithuania-USA co-production, whicih would automatically make it less than useful for Soviet doctrine (it also speaks volumes for its bona fide academic quality that for once an origin theory is not advanced by someone who just happens to be a native of the suggested area of origin...) The actual Russian (1980s Soviet) theory of PIE origins is the Armenian hypothesis: the support of this one is virtually restricted to Russia (and Armenia of course...). It's also a bona fide academic theory, but it has clear drawbacks compared to the Kurgan one, and failed to find wider support. I would be surprised to learn the Soviets touted the Kurgan theory (contemporary Ukrainian nationalism is another issue, of course). dab (𒁳) 19:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's also debated, seriously, critically, and at length in J.P. Mallory's survey of IE origin theories. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, after we ostracise and ban every academic who investigates a given theory, it then becomes very easy to sit on our high horse and say "tsk, tsk, it failed to find wider support". Reminds me of the walrus and carpenter. 70.105.27.58 (talk) 12:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

nonsense, plus please use your account. We just said that bona fide Soviet academics came up with the Armenian hypothesis. Renfrew's Anatolian hypothesis is also part of the game. The "broad homeland" idea seems to have at least some sane advocates. It is simply not true that "we ostracise and ban every academic who investigates" alternatives to the Kurgan model. The Kurgan model fits the bill best, but there are noteworthy alternatives. That, and, well this. --dab (𒁳) 14:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose this is another expression of that tendency, common in certain parts of WP, to assume that everything that came out of the Soviet academy was fringe by virtue of being filtered through Marxist-Leninist doctrine. Unfortunately untrue. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

yes, but, I am saying, the Kurgan hypothesis didn't even originate in the USSR, so that point is moot. It's the mainstream view in the USA in particular. dab (𒁳) 18:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course. "Came out" should read "accepted in." Relata refero (disp.) 18:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ararat arev?

or a close cousin? your call:

• Testerarms (talk · contribs)

--dab (𒁳) 18:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the info that I had added back, Greco-Armeno-Aryan I removed from the Armenian hypothesis, cause it already has links in the "See also", so its not need to push POV. However, minor correction I made, I corrected the date that is 4th millenium BC, corresponding to their hypothesis date, and also in the other PIE pages have the same info that was corrected. And I dont know any Ararat arev. Testerarms (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The good thing about IRC is that often you can find checkusers there a lot easier there than you can on RFCU. Blocked indef. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on contributions it seems likely to him that Ara Ur (talk · contribs) is another Ararat arev sock. Checkuser concurs. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Prem Rawat

Prem Rawat is the Indian-born head of a spritual movement. He was once known as "Guru Maharaj Ji" and led the Divine Light Mission. He and his movement were the subject of numerous scholarly and journalistic articles during their heyday. One scholar's book has been accused of making exceptional claims, trigering WP:REDFLAG. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, so in addition to deciding that the claims are exceptional we need to decide that the source is not a "high-quality reliable source". The debate is at Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat#Van der Lans. As currently drafted, the assertions of Jan van der Lans are summarized thus:

• Jan van der Lans, a professor of psychology of religion at the Radboud University Nijmegen, wrote about followers of gurus in a book published in 1981 commissioned by the KSGV, a Christian-inspired Dutch association that organizes conferences and publishes articles and books related to faith, religion and mental health. Van der Lans wrote that Maharaji is an example of a guru who has become a charlatan leading a double life. On the one hand, he tried to remain loyal to the role and to the expectations of his students, yet on the other hand, his private life was one of idleness and pleasure, which was only known to small circle of insiders. According to van der Lans, one could consider him either a fraud or a victim of his surroundings.
  • KSGV: Objectives
    "Het KSGV onderneemt zijn activiteiten vanuit een christelijke inspiratie."
  • Lans, Jan van der (Dutch language) Volgelingen van de goeroe: Hedendaagse religieuze bewegingen in Nederland page 117, written upon request for the KSGV published by Ambo, Baarn, 1981 ISBN 90-263-0521-4

The specific objections are "that he's a charlatan leading a double life" and that "his private life was one of idleness and pleasure, which was only known to small circle of insiders". FWIW, everyone agrees that the subject led a life of luxury and opulence.

To rebut the assertion that these are exceptional claims, I've done research on news clippings from the era, and find that these claims are confirmed by comments from friends, family, and associates (some ofthem estranged).

• Rawat's mother accused him of living like a playboy and adopting a despicable, nonspiritual way of life. Susan Butcher, speaking on behalf of Shri Mataji, said, He has not ben practicing what he has been preaching....He has always preached and recommend to his devotees to live a life of vegetarianism, celibacy, and abstention from alcohol, and all excessive forms of materialism. Now he himself is indulging and encouraging his devotees to eat meat, to get married and have sexual relations, and to drink. He's not living a spiritual life. He's being a playboy.
• Mishler, the organization's former president, said tight security surrounding the house is part of 'elaborate precautions' Maharaj Ji has taken to hide his private life from followers...Mishler said Maharaj Ji's ban on alcohol and marijuana for his followers was ignored at the estate...Mishler said he left the group because 'there was no way of accomplishing the ideals expounded by the mission.' In addition, he said more and more of the church money began to go for personal use and he was concerned that the Divine Light Mission was becoming a 'tax evasion for the guru.'
• Back in India, his colleagues were also sceptical: "The fact is that some Indian leaders - religous and lay- consider Maharaj Ji a fraud and his mission a gigantic ripoff.
• But his personal physician and disciple, Dr. John Horton, attributes the boy's weight to a sedentary life of making decisions.

In light of this information, is it reasonable to say that van der Lans represents a fringe viewpoint, and that his scholarly research makes exceptional claims, or are his assertions consistent with statements by other parties, meaning that they are not exceptional? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a one sided presentation of the dispute, which omits important facts. WP:REDFLAG applies for the 1973 Mother's claims: A devotee of Satguru, of God, he liquidates himself, or dissolved himself, or effaces himself on the Lotus Feet of the Lord". (referring to her son, Prem Rawat, age 13) and a November 1972, Time Magazine which reported that his mother and three older brothers kissed his feet as a demonstration of worship. Compare with the statement made after the rift (caused by the marriage of PR to a non-hindu against his mother's wishes) about "leading a despicable life", only three years later (!!!). Clearly a report of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended. (from WP:REDFLAG).

WP:REDFLAG also applies for the absurd claim (conveniently omitted by Will Beback) about "colleagues in India", who claimed he was a fraud as Rawat was a 22 years old, instead of 16 years old at the time. The full quote; The fact is that some Indian leaders - religous and lay- consider Maharaj Ji a fraud and his mission a gigantic ripoff. A group of religious leaders met in New Delhi to demand that the boy guru be examined by a panel of doctors to determine his true age, which they claimed is at least 22.

WP:REDFLAG, also applies to Mishler, who made these claims after leaving the organization due to conflicts. This Mishler went to the extent to make outrageous claims, such as that "that practices Maharaj Ji [Prem Rawat] employed, theoretically to subdue the ego, included 'stripping devotees, pouring abrasive chemicals on their bodies and into their mouths, administering drugs, having them beaten with a stick or thrown into swimming pools." A claim that is not included in any of the many scholarly sources available on the subject. There is one mention of Mishler's name in one source, that omits that information for very obvious reasons.

The text attributed to van der Lans, is not accurate. It was published is in a book published by an Protestant Evangelical organization that presents information from a "Christian inspired perspective" (my translation, as Will omits the translation of the KSGV objectives), who caters to pastors and churches. Clearly a Christian apologetic source, which needs to be assessed in that context (btw, there are no sources or references in that publication). The source is in Dutch and not available for verification, although some editors are making efforts to obtain a copy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The proposed draft fully attributes the assertions to their author. It is not being presented as an omniscient viewpoint, but rather as the viewpoint of a notable Dutch scholar. The KSGV is linked in the text, which also describes the publisher as, ...a Christian-inspired Dutch association that organizes conferences and publishes articles and books related to faith... I asked you several times if you objected to the scholar in general or just this book and you never responded so it'd be helpful if you could give your opinion on that matter here.

The source for Mishler is the L.A. Times., and the subject's mother's accusations were carried by the wire services and at least dozens of newspapers printed them. It's entirely verifiable that they said said those things. We're not in a position to judge whether they are correct or incorrect. They do show that Jan van der Lans did not simply make up the assertions that are being objected to. While it can be argued that quoting them would be a primary source, he is a scholar and a secondary source.

Regarding the subject's age, that isn't in dispute here so it appears to be a WP:REDHERRING. Jossi appears to be arguing that these assertions are so wildly false that we can't even report that they were made. On the contrary, I think they are a mere summation of widely-reported assertions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The age issue is certainly important, as it shows the necessary context to evaluate that source. I have no problems with van der Lans articles published by non-partisan publications, my argument is about the application of WP:REDFLAG to the sources you have brought to support your contention. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want to impeach the Indian leaders, reigious and lay, that called the subject a "fraud" then you're welcome to do so. But, combined with the subject's mother and former associate, they show that it's not an exceptional claim to say that van der Lans has accused Rawat of being a charlatan, or to include that accusation in the article. I mean, it's an even more exceptional claim to say that the subject was the "Lord of the Universe", yet we report that assertion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The calling of "Lord of the Universe" by his devotees in the 70's is widely reported. There is even a parody documentary Lord of the Universe (documentary), and my argument about WP:REDFLAG, was not about van der Lans accusations, but about the sources you brought to support your argument. Remove these sources that are obvious redflags, and what have you got? Not much. The problem with van der Lans quote is related to the fact that it is published in a partisan source, and that (a) it repeats claims that have, per my evidence, raise WP:REDFLAG concerns; (b) There is no scholarly source (and there are many) that repeat these claims; and (c) this is a WP:BLP, and the quality of sources is paramount for such claims. Basically, how can we call that a significant viewpoint? We can't≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

(What this was placed in this noticeboard? The correct noticeboard seems to be Wikipedia:V/N.) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:REDFLAG says to see Wikipedia:Fringe theories, which in turns points here. You seem to be arguing that van der Lans is promoting a fringe theory. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No, Will. I am arguing about applying WP:REDFLAG as it relates to Wikipedia:V#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The argument on the talk hasn't been that the source is unrelaible, it's been that the claim is outlandish. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Differences in perception

Cultural differences US-Europe

Schnabel points to a difference in appreciation between northern America, the eastern world and Europe (p 104):

Voorts mag worden opgemerkt, dat de meeste nieuwe religieuze bewegingen Nederland hebben bereikt via de Verenigde Staten en beïnvloed zijn door de ‘zucht naar rijkdom’, waarvan De Tocqueville (1971 (1840), 206) al tot zijn verbazing moest vaststellen dat die ‘bij de Amerikanen dus geenszins in een kwade reuk staat, ja zelfs bewonderd wordt...’. De ambivalente houding ten opzichte van geld, die de Europeaan kenmerkt, is in Amerika en ook in het Oosten vrijwel geheel afwezig. In de Verenigde Staten wordt geld duidelijk als een positief bewijs en als een symbool van het eigen maatschappelijk succes beleefd. Een kwantitatieve verandering leidt hier zonder twijfel tot een kwalitatieve omslag. Wie arm is, heeft dat aan zichzelf te wijten: wie rijk is heeft dat aan zichzelf te danken. In India denkt men daar misschien wat genuanceerder over, maar ook daar geldt dat het bezit van geld zeker geen schande is en ook geen gevoel van schuld geeft in de confrontatie met de armoede rondom. Rijkdom is altijd verdiend. Het ideaal van de Indiase ascese is dan ook niet het in armoe leven op zich, maar het verzaken van de wereld: het loslaten van dat wat men heeft, nadat men zijn maatschappelijke verplichtingen heeft vervuld. Arm zijn is op zich geen verdienste, en de armen is ook zeker niet meer het rijk der hemelen dan de rijken.

(summary:) Schnabel points out that in the US (and the East but with more nuance there) richess is seen as a positive sign; In Europe (with the Netherlands as an example), money has a "bad odour", in general - or: Europeans have an ambivalent attitude w.r.t. richess.

Crossing the line

A bit simplistic, but this is more or less the picture: in Europe a religious leader would cross a line from the moment he lives in luxury, or alternatively when he teaches something different as to what he applies to himself (for this point see Schnabel p 101, this makes a charismatic leader a fraud/"bedrieger"); the US has more tolerance in that respect: neither does affluence in and by itself, nor the charismatic leader putting himself apart from the flock carry a necessary connotation of condemnation. There, affluence is admired; "fraud" would only apply when appropriating money in mischievous ways, etc.

For all Dutch authors from the early 1980s we've been considering regarding Rawat (Haan, Van der Lans, Kranenborg, Lammers, Schnabel,...) there's no doubt, Rawat crossed a line he shouldn't have crossed (in a European perspective) - that is the mainstream opinion there; For US/northern American authors of roughly the same period the mainstream opinion is that he's a quite successful religious leader, and that accusations from former adherents and disgraced family members are "fringe".

Conclusions

1. For sources from the Netherlands of the early 1980s REDFLAG applies to those sources that would contend that Rawat didn't cross a line of appropriatness — not the other way around;
2. Regarding the underlying differences of appreciation between Northern America and Europe (...and the East): I have no clearcut solution as to how to present that in Wikipedia. Anyway on the one side I suppose we should try to avoid the pitfalls of a too US-centred view (compare WP:NPOV/FAQ#Anglo-American focus and systematic bias); on the other hand the Prem Rawat article (and by extention the "Criticism" article) are hardly the place to start expounding on these general cultural differences: these are biographical articles, BLP's even, that leaves little room for the interpretation of the worldwide connotations of terms like "fraud" (which, according to any Dutch-English dictionary, is the correct English translation of "bedrieger").

--Francis Schonken (talk) 08:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I am reminded of an interesting comparison between US and European attitudes in reguards to the concept of "Equality" that I once read in an Op-Ed collumn in a newspaper (I no longer remember which paper)... A poor man sees a rich man drive by in a fancy automobile... if the poor man is an American, he will say to himself: "Someday, I will ride in a fancy car just like that guy". If the poor man is a European, he will say to himself: "Someday I will make that guy get out and walk just like me". Not sure if this has anything to do with the current debate... it just came to mind. Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Since we're OT, I can add that there are a couple of economics papers demonstrating why both beliefs, as well a moral standard of the sort Francis talks about above, could be simultaneously rational and self-reinforcing. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• "Schnabel points out that in the US (and the East but with more nuance there) richess is seen as a positive sign; In Europe (with the Netherlands as an example), money has a "bad odour", in general - or: Europeans have an ambivalent attitude w.r.t. richess."

Gee, you'd think there are two groups serving two different masters. One group loves and serves Mammon, and lives to accumulate it in this temporal world, while the other group hates it. 70.105.57.250 (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

When Rawat married in 1974 his followers gave him a Maserati and a boat. Scholars who compare him unfavorably to the penniless celibate monk are judging him by the wrong measure. His followers wanted him to live a life of luxury and therefore he is not being duplicitous by obliging them.Momento (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Syriac people and newly created pages by the minute

The page is a mirror of Assyrian people. If you look at the Syriac people page, it uses http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/ as a main source for many lines. If you look at those links, it says specifically below that the information was taken from Wikipedia itself. Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac) and Wikipedia:Assyrian-Syriac wikipedia cooperation board, we agreed that we would not bring in politics into other pages, but explain the situation in the Assyrian naming dispute page. We agreed that the defacto name used to describe the group would be Assyrian (Assyrian people) since that is the term used mostly in the English language. This single user seems to be on a crusade to create an ethnicity based on, well, nothing except a few quotes taken out of content. But now, he is creating all this mirror pages (Example History of the Assyrian people - he goes on and creates History of the Syriac people) and seems to continue to path of mirroring pages like Assyrian culture, etc. We don't have saperate ethnic pages let alone history, culture, music, etc for Orthodox Armenian people and Catholic Armenian people and it should be like this for this group too. Chaldean (talk) 23:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Syriacs are not assyrians. Syriacs are descendants to the arameans not the assyrians. You and Eliasalucard were the only one who has agreed that the name to describe the whole group would be Assyrian people wich is totaly wrong. No one that call him or her self for syriac accpets assyrian identity. there are more syriacs than assyrians. And the assyrian history is way different with the syriac history. Please stop all this assyrian propaganda. You and Eliasalucard main object was to assyrianaite everythign and everyone. FOr example that the Ephraim the syrian was assyrian. No he was not, and no the name Syria does not derive from the name Assyria, and that has been proven in later times. Stop all this assyrian propaganda! VegardNorman (talk) 09:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I will leave the ethnology to those who know it better than I do... and will limit my comments to http://www.spiritus-temporis.com - This is clearly not a reliable source for use in Wikipedia, as it takes its information from Wikipedia. Another source will be needed to back any statements that are cited to that site. Blueboar (talk) 12:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Chaldean and VegardNorman are two editors who decided they will simply Not Get It. The topic of their dispute is valid, and I have invested insane amounts of time trying to get them to collaborate towards a wikilike solution, but instead they simply act disruptively and are completely impermeable to reason or advice. VegardNorman likes to prance around with pov forks and erratic splits, while Chaldean's approach is consistent and complete ignoratio elenchi. Administrative action is needed here. We can solve these problems, but these two editors are clearly not part of any solution. dab (𒁳) 19:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You can't put me in the same basket as him. Take a look at my edits and take a look at his. Do I use joke of a sources like he does? I'd like to bring up the question that you asked me about a month ago; "Are you here to write encyclpedic articles or are you here to push nationalist agenda?" - Show me a single edit vegard has made that is considered encyclopedic. All you see from him is screams of Syriacs are Arameans, Syriacs are Arameans and creating proparganda pages. As for me, if my latest work, Persian Mesopotamia, isn't considered one of the better articles written in Wikipedia, let alone coming from a user who "act only disruptively", then by all means, punish me. I'm really disappointed in you dab for not being neutral when dealing with me. I have repeadly requested for you not to label me as one of these other nationlistic users you deal with, citing my work here on wiki. Chaldean (talk) 00:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I know you mean "well", but your involvement is simply not helpful in dealing with this issue. VegardNorman also "means well", and yet we agree he is a problem editor. Meaning well isn't enough, you need to actually understand what Wikipedia is, what it isn't and how it works. And I'm sorry to say that you aren't exactly making an effort. dab (𒁳) 11:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

How can you say that? I tried to help the issue by suggesting and creating the cooperation board. I understand what Wikipedia is, but I'm more then confident to say that Vegard doesn't. He can't honestly say that his here to create encyclopedic work. If so, I'd like to see one example of that since he has opened his account. Chaldean (talk) 13:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Could we please stop the personal comments. This is not the place for them. Focus on the WP:FRINGE problems with the article in question and how to fix them, rather than the editors. If the problem is the editors... then take that to a more appropriate venue. Blueboar (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

the problem is, of course, with the editors. As in virtually every case listed on this noticeboard. I would welcome previously uninvolved admins looking into this. Vegard probably does need a warning what with his tactics of creating confusion with wild-eyed moving and splitting instead of trying to find a compromise. --dab (𒁳) 14:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Theosophy

This page has a habit of claiming the religious beliefs of the Theosoph...anic? sect are true, saying things like "Blavatsky showed that [Theosophanic belief presented as fact]. Wouldn't surprise me if the same didn't apply to all pages on the religion. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This seems less an issue of fringe theory than of simple attribution, making sure assertions are attributed, no? It's not as if this is a fringe view of a larger question; it's simply a description of the beliefs of Theosophists. I was thinking hey, this is something I could do, but it looks as if someone else has already fixed it, since the assertions seem to be attributed now, as in "Theosophists believe..." etc. Woonpton (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is an issue of attribution. For example, in the article Ascension of Jesus, the statement that he physically ascended can only be made in the context of attributing it to the beliefs of a particular religion(s). Arion 3x3 (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Reddi's back

Reddi (talk · contribs)

You might want to check this user's contributions in case free-energy suppression stuff starts to seep in to mainstream science pages. Also, he likes to hide fringe science in paper laundry lists and he is a big fan of listing patents. These things should be resisted.

ScienceApologist (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

does anyone see a point in having an "unlimited energy" article in the first place? --dab (𒁳) 16:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Boils down to whether it is a notable notion. I guess it is if it crops up frequently in science fiction. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably not. Just redirect to perpetual motion, or a disambig with renewable energy also. It seems like Reddi is trying to say that workable sources of unlimited energy are out there now, but we're not being allowed to know about them on account of that fount of all evil, the US Government (is there anything those chaps haven't done?). Evidently the first law of thermodynamics is dispensable here, judging be the mild-mannered description of perpetual-motion-machine inventors as "eccentrics" :) An article on Energy in science fiction might be justifiable, though. Moreschi2 (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

He thinks he should be the final arbiter of what is acceptable as an external link or reference also. Thanks for the headsup.Doug Weller (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Show me a device that turns indefinitely, and I'll show you a crank. Will take a look. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

KLA and Organ Trafficking

I'm concerned about an issue I've seen popping up on Kosovo-related articles over the past few weeks. Apparently, Carla del Ponte's upcoming book (The Hunt: Me and War criminals) alleges that ethnic Albanian rebels in Kosovo were kidnapping Serbs, killing them, and selling their organs during the Kosovo War. Sources for this allegation range from poor (blogs) to decent (cautious references in CNN, WSJ, etc.).

From my perspective though, there seem to be a few problems with this. First, as far as I can tell, the book is unpublished; Amazon doesn't even list preorder information on the title. Thus, it's impossible for us to independently verify the stories. Leaving aside the blog sources (which, as I understand it, don't count as reliable sources), mainstream news accounts seem sketchy as well. The mostly focus on reports that HRW and other international agencies have sent a letter to Kosovo authorities for explanation. Maybe my google-fu is weak, but I can't seem to find a copy of the letter.

I'm not willing to cry hoax on this. There has to be some traction for this story because it has appeared in major news outlets; but as sensational as the topic appears, I would have expected more coverage. Maybe this can be chalked up to "Western anti-Serb bias", but I'm not sure. It looks to me more like news agencies are reporting the story but hedging in case it doesn't play out.

My biggest concern is that this issue is being used as a big stick with which to beat a number of Kosovo-related articles, in keeping with the on-Wiki pissing contest over the independence declaration. Outside views, both on the story's accuracy as well as on it's relevance, would be welcome. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 21:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

it's a matter of WP:UNDUE. It's a book. You cannot treat something as fact just because Carla del Ponte said so. For the book to be used as a source for the main Kosovo article, there would at first be some sort of consensus as to its reliability (a consensus among notable critics, not among Wikipedians). Not to mention that it needs to be published first. dab (𒁳) 13:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Folantin (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

correction, it has been published, a few days ago. Just in the Italian original, no English translation. --dab (𒁳) 14:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Dysgenics

Can somebody take a look at Dysgenics, as the article seems more and more to be pushing a fringe theory as accepted, mainstream science. Additional eyes are welcome.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

it appears that the article is being hijacked by the "race and intelligence" crowd. Which is driving it off topic. "Genetic deterioration" is not primarily about intelligence, IQ testing may at best be mentioned as a case study in the wider topic. --dab (𒁳) 13:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Kannada literature

WP:3O might have been a better place for this except for the "two editors only" rule. Basically, the issue is the locus of scholarly consensus on the dating of a famous inscription. It was dated shortly after the discovery, and this dating has been widely popularized; it shows up in many places. However, the dating has been reconsidered by a number of really heavy guns in the field. So this is a conflict between an undeniably popular view and up-to-date expert scholarship, with the latter now being pooh-poohed as WP:UNDUE because a subtext of antiquity frenzy predisposes the naysayers to that early dating. The discussion on the talk page is extensive at this point, unfortunately -- and there may be an edit-war in the offing -- so some guidance and third-party opinion on things like WP:RS and due weight could be helpful. rudra (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand the difference in dating is a measly century? How does that make for "antiquity frenzy"? Anyway, the input needed at Talk:Kannada literature is that this is a question of marginal detail to be discussed at Halmidi inscription. Sheesh, it's the page on the entire literature of a major langauge, and they hold it hostage for a quibble over a single pathetic inscription. That's like spamming German literature with 200k of obsessively detailed disputes over the Pforzen buckle. dab (𒁳) 19:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Antiquity frenzy in that given 450 AD was an initial dating subsequently revised upward by the likes of Sircar and Gai (which is about as heavy as the artillery gets), I'll bet my bottom dollar that had the revision been downward instead, we would never have even heard about that 450 AD dating, let alone the endless filibustering in favor of it right now. Note also that a vested interest in "finding" hoary antecedents has been created recently by a movement to have Kannada officially recognized as a "classical language" alongside Sanskrit and Tamil. rudra (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• "..How does that make for "antiquity frenzy"?.." - Slander 101 explains it in greater detail. and fwiw, my views are here and here. Sarvagnya 19:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• and fwiw, this is what jstor returns and this is what google scholar returns. 450, 450, 450, 450, 450 all the way! what the blazes are the likes of rudra and fowler even filibustering about? Sarvagnya 19:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• yeah, well, it's still irrelevant to Kannada literature, and the entire train wreck should be moved to Talk:Halmidi inscription. I understand this is about "we are classical too!", which I suppose must make sense as a label worthy of bickering about to Indian minds, even if it doesn't to anyone else. dab (𒁳) 20:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Where do you find me or Dinesh insisting that it is relevant to Kannada literature?! On the contrary, right from the start, we've maintained that this issue(non-issue) has been concocted to stall the FA drive of the article in question. If there is anybody out on that page wanting the "trainwreck" to move to its own page, it is us!

Also, your rhetoric and rudra's misrepresentation apart, this has nothing to do with "we are classical too!" (whatever that is supposed to mean). This issue, if anything, has solely to do with reporting scholarly consensus and moving on. If you have a problem with that, just say so instead of prating on.Sarvagnya 21:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm completely bewildered. The greatest disparity in dates could be only 130 years. Judging by the current content of Halmidi inscription there is evidently a genuine debate in academic circles here, albeit that the opinion of the majority looks to favour 450. Put in some compromise wording such as "450 CE" with a footnote saying something like "The date usually given for the inscription, though some scholars favour a later date, a few delaying the date of the inscription until as late as 550. See also Halmidi inscription#Relevant section for more info". Edit-war done and dusted. Moreschi2 (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

"...commonly dated to 450 AD/5th century..." + a pipelink to the relevant section on the halmidi article + the other dates thrown in in the footnotes is precisely what dinesh and I had suggested about 50 or 100 kb ago. A certain Fowler and a rudra, however continue to filibuster and a certain dab helped things enormously by landing on the page to 'warn' dinesh. and then the same dab turns up here and tells us that the dating dispute on that article is totally irrelevant for that article - as if I or dinesh disagreed! truly bewildering stuff! at this rate, it may not be long before a Sanskrit literature gets overrun by dating debates concerning Panini and Natya Shastra and Dandin and Shankaracharya and Vedas and ... Sarvagnya 22:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, right. First, from WP:RS (remember Relata's advice about Ctrl-F?): Many Wikipedia articles rely upon source material created by scientists, scholars, and researchers. This is usually considered reliable, although some material may be outdated by more recent research, or controversial in the sense that there are alternative theories.. Well, nowhere in the more recent research has the initial 450 AD date been upheld with argument. For the simple reason that it is by no means easy to argue with the likes of Sircar, Gai or Venkatachala Sastry. No one is arguing that the pseudo-precise 450 AD date isn't popular or widely seen; the point is that it is an outdated estimate in relation to informed scholarship. And yet, when Abecedare proposed "mid-fifth to early sixth century" as a possible compromise formulation, who was it now that said "No!"? Boy, you have some nerve. rudra (talk) 23:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Outdated? Why dont you try telling that to Pollock and Bh. Kr and Sridhar and the Archeological Survey of India and the dozens of others who go with the 450 date? And since when did dates culled from 2003 and 2006 become outdated? And for crying out loud, the most recent dating by an epigrapher happens to be by K. V. Ramesh (1984) -- not Sircar (1949), not Gai (1962)! And K. V. Ramesh says "5th century" and also gives his take on the other dates - which are anything but flattering. Sircar's and Gai's dates have been out there for decades and have found next to no takers. And you come prancing here with a forty year old paper crying "stop press!"?! Some piece of work, you are. Sarvagnya 23:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Look again. Gai's latest work on the subject was in 1991/2. That and Venkatachala Sastry's 1992 study are cited by Pollock. (Not to mention that Ramesh does not uphold 450 AD: he just rejects the 6th for the 5th. Longish quote on the talk page for your perusal.) rudra (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

1949 or 1992.. Gai's and Sircar's dates have less takers by orders of magnitude. It is for a reason. The reason is that epigraphers, notwithstanding your sales pitch are never the final word on matters of dating. These disagreements will remain perhaps for centuries to come. Panini and Kalidasa have perhaps been dissected a thousand times more than Halmidi by indologists and yet we have lingering debates. And yet, we have the common sense to pick the most frequently cited date(if and when we have to) for Panini and Kalidasa and Rig Veda.. and the commonsense to not overrun Sanskrit literature with these debates. I cant see why Halmidi and Kannada literature have to be exceptions. There's simply no wishing away of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE regardless of what you think of TVVS or Gai or Sircar. TVVS btw, is no epigraphist and KVR votes for "5th century". Sarvagnya 01:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, count the Encyclopedia Britannica among the "takers":-) The articles on Panini and Kalidasa are very careful to avoid precise dates (so much so that the Kalidasa article even gives WP:UNDUE weight to KD Sethna's theories); you need better examples. And yes, KVR votes for the 5th as a judgment that Halmidi is earlier than the other Kadamba era inscriptions. Reading him fairly, he is saying "second half of the 5th". rudra (talk) 01:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The same EB on another page goes with 450 AD. huh. Anything else? Sarvagnya 18:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The EB article on "Historical Survey of the Dravidian Languages"? It says "the earliest inscriptions in Kannada may be dated at...", not "are dated at...". Okay, enough. It might be a better idea for you to review WP:RS policy on current research, but if you insist on having the last word, by all means do so. I've even made some space for you. rudra (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion this discussion on the Kannada literature page started with a valid concern that saying that the Halmidi inscription dates to 450 A.D. without any qualifications or "error bars" is not a good idea. After much, and perhaps inordinate, discussion there now seems to be a general consensus on the talk page that something like what Moreschi suggested above is the way to go (i.e., 4-5 words on the usual date in maintext; add a footnote with other views and references and pipelink to the detailed dating section).
However the current sticking point is simply whether the maintext should say that the Halmidi inscriptions are usually dated to 5th c/about 5th c/mid 5th c or mid 5th to early 6th c, and I fear that the antipathy that editors have built up towards each other during the lengthy debates over this (and some other ?) article is preventing us from settling this really trivial issue and moving on. Any suggestions ? Abecedare (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, everyone just walk away for a bit. There Is No Deadline. Work on History of the Uruguayan Economy or something and return when you've cooled down. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

anyone who is at all familiar with dating issues in ancient India knows that it is practically inconceivable to give a date better than within a century's uncertainty. "mid 5th to early 6th century" is already far too precise. It is also irrelevant for the purposes of the Kannada literature article. It is sufficient to state the thing dates to ca. the 5th century and move on. As far as I can see, nobody disagrees with this estimate for the inscriptions date, so I really don't see the problem. As Abecedare points out, this seems to have more to do with animosities between editors than with any factual dispute. Can you please all take a step back, settle for "ca. 5th century" for the Kannada literature article, and take the gory details to Halmidi inscription. I honestly don't see what difference it makes to the topic of Kannada literature whether this inscription dates to 450 or to 550. If the dispute was between 450 BCE and 450 CE, I could see the problem, but "give or take a century" is simply business as usual for any topic of ancient India: there was no historiography in India at the time, and any absolute date will be no more than an educated guess. See also WP:LAME. dab (𒁳) 08:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

POV-pushing and lies on Arsenicum album

[14] <- These additions are, quoite frankly, factually untrue. They claim that a study, where the authors admit that they didn't even use control groups for most of the study was a double-blind placebo-controlled study (!) based on some minor, dodgy results in the first part that were sort of placebo controlled, but... well, see Talk:Arsenicum_album#More_info_on_the_human_trial for more on that part. In short, Ullman and Arion are trying to force in their POV, quotemine a barely-notable study, and other such things. God, what do those two have to do in order to get blocked? Switch to supporting mainstream medicine, because all homeopaths are unblockable? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably. This same article's been up on this noticeboard before, too. Moreschi2 (talk) 08:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Announcement of Fringe-theory related Arbcom case

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#DanaUllman Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

L. Brent Bozell III

Article on a typical moral guardian that's full of the implicit assumption that he is correct in his views. TV programs he campaigns agains are described as "indecent", without qualifications to say it's in his opinion. [I've done some work to fix this, but it really needs well-sourced criticism to be truly balanced.] The lead paragraph is also problematic. The article isn't awful, by any means - a fair bit of criticism is already included - but it falls into the all-too-easy trap of writing from your subject's side when describing his views. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

physiological effects of fasting

I'm having trouble with User:Ralphyde continually adding very questionable claims about the effects of fasting on the fasting article, and trumpeting his personal success with fasting all over the talk page. His only source is books published by some guy named Joel Fuhrman (who has an article here that I believe needs to be listed on AfD for lack of notability), and he doesn't have any reputable sources to back it up. For example, some of the claims posted are that fasting can treat cancer and serious heart problems, or that it's used medically for detoxifying. None of this is linked to a single peer-reviewed study. There also seem to be strangely be several people, registered accounts and IPs that always come up whenever someone tries to remove those claims or even argue against them. Could be sockpuppeting (Ralphyde and Ralph770 are pretty similar names, and the latter has no contribution history besides backing up Ralphyde in that talk page), but I don't know well enough to know for sure. Thanks for the help. FironDraak (talk)

We seem to have a minature walled garden here. I've removed Fuhrman's content from fasting per WP:REDFLAG (also NPOV), but the problem extends to Joel Fuhrman's biography and water fasting. There are claims being made that Fuhrman's work has been peer-reviewed but this is not cited, nor the assertion that there is empirical evidence to back up these rather way-out theories (hunger pangs are just detoxification?). More eyes needed. Moreschi2 (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. In the same article, there's also a book written by Herbert M. Shelton being used as a source for fasting treating cancer and allergies. I'll remove the claim and the citation as well. It's in the medical fasting section of the article. The particular book is published by the American Natural Hygiene Society Inc, but it's just an organization that he started (so it's essentially self-published). FironDraak (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, it was FironDraak who arbitrarily removed a large well cited section about pure water fasting from the Fasting article. This had been discussed several months ago and the section had remained. I restored the removed section with an explanation on the talk page. Please go read it. Dr. Fuhrman's book is not self-published, and is replete with sixteen pages of references from all over the world, which can be verified online. It is highly recommended by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. Dr. Fuhrman is a leading authority on nutrition and fasting, and has over 88,000 references on Google, as "Joel Fuhrman" (with quotes to limit number). And I don't know Ralph770 but appreciate his input as well. Ralphyde (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Wikidas

Further information: Satsvarupa dasa Goswami

Wikidas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), touting an ISKCON book as "Indology".

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

See here, and user's talk history (keeps blanking warnings). dab (𒁳) 15:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

His latest contribution doesn't bode well. rudra (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not WP:BOLD; that is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Abecedare (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The author of "Reading in Vedic Literature" is quite manifestly a crank. Some of this really is laugh-out-loud material. Moreschi2 (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

this may be a good time to check the eulogy at Satsvarupa dasa Goswami, especially the "Academic presentation" section:

First book published in 1975 during Prabhupada's lifetime was Readings in Vedic Literature: the Tradition Speaks for Itself.[ ICJ Vol 3, No 1 - June 1995 The First Indologists. Satsvarupa dasa Goswami] Prabhupada was greatly appreciative of the review of the book by the academic circles. Satsvarupa dasa Goswami was supportive of the foundation of ISKCON Oxford Centre of Vaisnava and Hindu Studies and some of his works were published in ICJ [ The Inner Life of a Preacher ICJ Vol 1, No 2 December 1994.] and reviewed by the academia in ICJ academic journal. [ ICJ Authors pageof Satsvarupa dasa Goswami Review of the A Poor Man Reading the Bhagavatam, vol.1. by Dr. K. Klostermaier, ICJ 5.1] Dispite initial anti-cult controversies, the Hare Krishna movement today is accepted by the academics as "the most genuinely Hindu of all the many Indian movements in the West".[[[#CITEREFKlostermair2000|Klostermair 2000]], Intro]

As with the Hindutva crowd, their key claim to "academic recognition" is Klaus Klostermaier. --dab (𒁳) 17:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Quote-mining at its best to suggest that Moriz Winternitz thought Vedic history is a couple of thousand years years older than 2nd millenium BC. Here is Winternitz being critical of exactly such antiquity frenzy (pages 25-26; I think it is the same book being quoted with a different translator). Articles edited by User:Wikidas need thorough checking for more such misrepresentations and poor sourcing. Abecedare (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Quote that to the Kannada literature fans and who knows how many gaskets would blow? (Though I note that F&f has raised the delicate question of what ever happened to those 96000 verses...) rudra (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

so, I think at this point we can assume it is official that Wikidas knows what he is doing and is gaming the system on purpose. dab (𒁳) 18:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the Satsvarupa dasa Goswami article and discussion history, I see that are some details about "personal improprieties" by Goswami, for which he was sanctioned by ISKCON. User:Wikidas sanitized them from the article (see the "Personal difficulties" section) as well as the talk pages (see Archive 1 + many comments that were deleted from the talk page), even though they were sourced and linked from Goswami's own website ([15], [16]). I certainly won't be adding back the content to the wikipedia article since at this point it will appear retaliatory, but IMO it is another case where the user could not keep his personal beliefs and preferences off wikipedia, and wikilawyered based on WP:BLP. Abecedare (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Just curious, why is the ToC in an unusual place, tucked away like that? rudra (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I had corrected it and pointed out the MOS when I had first seen the article three weeks back. (See here) I had thought that I could help wikify and cleanup the article, but eventually gave up in face of constant resistance and since the subject was not of great interest to me. Abecedare (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Why the vedas?

I have a question — why does Vedas-related material attract cranks so commonly? --Haemo (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

In an nutshell, India and the West were confused by one another in the 19th century. The West got cheesy esotericism, and India got cranky pseudoscience. dab (𒁳) 19:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Good question. My take: the "Vedas" are a maguffin-like conjuration to most Hindus, because they really haven't the first notion of what's in them. And that's because the vedas have been relentlessly obfuscated, mythologized and sanctified (while kept carefully out of sight) for the better part of the last 2000 years. So, since they are so ancient and hoary and glorious and holy and special and all that, the natural tendency is to associate anything you want to sanctify as... "vedic". For instant, knee-jerk venerability. All you have to do is to claim this; since no one else knows any better, they're all too likely (in the Indian context, anyway) to be impressed by your confident assertion... and concede... and pass it on the next guy... And so the myths multiply, and in due course practically everything starts to get labelled "vedic", including today's astrology column. And finally, they bring this mass of addlepated wishful thinking to Wikipedia. rudra (talk) 19:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Short answer: History+religion+nationalism make for a potent mixture and "vedic" literature is just one of the topics at the intersection. It is a pity, because neutral facts about the Vedic and Sanskrit literature are remarkable enough, and the surrounding pseudohistory/pseudoscience does nothing to enhance their merits. Abecedare (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Haemo, you'll note that both rudra and I put "vedic" in quotes (for reasons explained in rudra's comment). Incidentally, Wikidas' edits have nothing to do with the Vedas per se; a significant problem with them is that he'd like to stretch the definition of Vedas to cover the texts held "most" holy by ISKCON. This of course, is a well-established practice of upcoming Hindu sects for centuries and is explained in the Fifth Veda article. Abecedare (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

it's partly a semantic problemm, what with veda meaning "knowledge" vs. Vedic Sanskrit referring to a specific corpus. Quite similar to islam meaning "piety" vs. Islam referring to a specific religious tradition. Fwiiw, this edit by Wikidas (if a genuine Bhavishya Purana quote) may be useful in elucidating the history of the problem. dab (𒁳) 20:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, veda ity eva śabditaḥ "noised indeed as 'veda'". By Madhvacarya's time, that could well have been true. Peculiar quote, though. 3 16-syllable lines instead of 4. (And, I suppose, an obligatory typo.) rudra (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

rudra, I think your translation "noised" is a bit disingenious. You seem to imply that later religious scripture is somehow inferior to earlier religious scripture. That's a fallacy. The only thing we need to do is distinguish between one and the other, not prefer one over the other. dab (𒁳) 21:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I wasn't implying that. But it's true that the tendency of tradition, even when newly invented, has always been to obliterate the distinction. The fundamental problem there is that it has created a long standing fallacy that a consistent continuity has prevailed, that latter day religion is "no different" than the Vedic one. And so, the facts of Vedic times must be suppressed, distorted or misrepresented in order to maintain that fallacy (or else, horrors, the tradition will be "falsified"!) Case in point: the bizarre flap over whether the Vedic folks ate beef. Basically, it is practically a cultural given to deny the distinction you and I know exists. rudra (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

(off-topic) But yes, "noised" was less than kind. I get bothered more than I should by poor versification, such as when words like eva are used as metrical filler and not for meaningful emphasis. IMHO, the inherent clumsiness if not also silliness of eva śabditaḥ deserves ribbing (something like veda iti pracakṣataḥ would have worked just as well and met the requirement of a heavy antepenultimate syllable.) rudra (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

<deindent>

Wilfred Cantwell Smith has some interesting thoughts on the various uses of the term veda in What is scripture? (page 133 onwards). I agree with need to be clear about the intended meaning, rather than judge the comparative worths of the Vedas v/s vedas. And, of course, there are intentional attempts to blur the distinction as in SDG's book. Abecedare (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Madhvacharya quote

Thanks for your comments guys, just to make sure to our presentation is based on Madhva comments on the Vedanta sutra (2.1.6), where quotes the Bhaviṣya Purāṇa as follows:

ṛg-yajuḥ-sāmārtharvāś ca bhārataṁ pañcarātrakam mūla-rāmāyaṇaṁ caiva veda ity eva śabditaḥ purāṇāni ca yānīha vaiṣṇavāni vido viduḥ

"The Ṛg Veda, Yajur Veda, Sāma Veda, Atharva Veda, Mahābhārata (which includes the Bhagavad-gītā), Pañcarātra, and the original Rāmāyaṇa are all considered Vedic literature.... The Vaiṣṇava supplements, the Purāṇas, are also Vedic literature." We may also include corollary literatures like the Saṁhitās, as well as the commentaries of the great teachers who have guided the course of Vedic thought for centuries.

Incidentally it was quoted in Goswami, S.D. (1976), Readings in Vedic Literature: The Tradition Speaks for Itself, Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, pp. 240 pages, ISBN 0912776889</ref> As reviewed by Dr. T. J. Hopkins of Department of Religious Studies, Franklin and Marshall College

Having indicated my own academic reservations, I must add that I am nonetheless impressed by Satsvarūpa dāsa Goswami's presentation. His initial chapter is one of the best statements available on the importance of the guru in transmitting spiritual knowledge, his chapters on "Essential Elements of Vedic Thought," "Vedic Literature-Siddhānta and History," "The Teachings of the Ācāryas," and "Impersonalism Versus Theism" are excellent summaries of devotional theology as found within the Indian religious tradition, and his chapter on "The Vedic Social Philosophy" gives a compelling vision of "the God-centered society."

— T J Hopkins

I do not expect you guys to fully relate to this material, but you have to realize that you should arrive at NPOV here. This is specific and devotional perspective and is based and about Vedic tradition. BTW Bhaktivedanta Book Trust is the biggest publishing house of Vedic literature (of course, if you accept devotional tradition as part of Vedic perspective). There are different views on it, I represent one view and you have a different views, I do not see the problem in it, you seems to have.--Wikidās ॐ 20:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The foreword of the book itself starts with the following caveat:

It is only just, in a karmic sense, that an academic scholar be asked to write the foreword for a book that rejects the views of most academic scholars on the historical development of the Vedas. To protect my own academic status (and perhaps incur further bad karma), I should say at the outset that I do not as a scholar accept Satsvarupa dasa Goswami's views on the origin of the Vedas, and I question his use of evidence from the epics and Puranas, which I consider non-Vedic, to prove that these same sources have Vedic authority.

— T. J. Hopkins

and the whole foreword can be read here. Beside that blistering foreword, the book has received no non-ISKCON scholarly review or notice whatsover. I think that should settle the issue on the non-reliability and fringeyness of the source. Abecedare (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

so, you quote SDG quoting Madhva, quoting the Vedanta sutra quoting the Bhavishya Purana? Why the hell don't you just quote the Bhavishya Purana, at Bhavishya Purana where the quote will be on topic? The confusion is with the term "Vedic". You use "Vedic" not in the sense of the Four Vedas, but in another sense. There is nothing wrong with that, you just need to keep it on an article where it is on topic (WP:DAB). So, you may be interested in editing Bhavishya Purana, and you'll be welcome to do that. "devotional tradition" is a respectable topic, and it has its own article, at Bhakti movement. We are just asking you to not mix up Iron Age religion with late medieval religion, but you are of course perfectly welcome to discuss religion in late medieval India at the proper place. dab (𒁳) 21:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm having doubts about the whole thing. Madhvacarya quoting something as unauthoritative as the Bhavishya Purana while commenting on the VedantaSutra? At 2.1.6 (dṛśyate tu) which doesn't seem to have any connection with a "definition" of the vedas? And one and a half shlokas quoted? And never mind that Madhvacarya himself is "predicted" in the Pratisargaparvan? This is just too weird. I think we need to locate the passage in Bhavishya Purana before anything else. rudra (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here is an article by Rahul Peter Das on the ISKCON journal site. It has a separate page for the footnotes. See footnotes 49 and 51. Looks like SDG got his shlokas garbled. Apparently the (correct) passages exist in Madhvacharya's commentary, but we can't be sure of which Purana he quoted (in footnote 51). I think all we have here is Madhvacharya's own doctrine of what constitute the "vedas" and nothing more. He actually calls them shastras instead, too. rudra (talk) 23:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I perfectly know your views, and Im happy to generate some discussion on it. You seem to follow one system of definition on what is 'Vedic' (an irong age theory...), and I follow another (a more wholistic as far as tradition is concerned). I really appreciate rudra bringing it up (not the tone but the principle of being bold here) - this is a critical issue, for the common usage of word Vedic is different to what rudra has, even its an accepted view by western academics, (for example ->[17]). Historically it were western or christian scholars who introduced the concept of 'post-Vedic Purana period' - of course I can be wrong, but give me a quote with 'post-Vedic Purana period' from the period before British occupation? Wikidās ॐ 07:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

hah, so rudra does your job for you by looking up a garbled quote of yours, and you decide to go on about "his views" rather than addressing the point. Your definition of "Vedic" is irrelevant to the point that SDG garbled his Purana quotes. That's shoddy work even before we discuss disambiguation of the term "Vedic". And, no, critical philology was invented by Indians far before Europeans (Panini's chandasi) , they just forgot all about it in the course of the Middle Ages. The Bhakti movement originated in the Middle Ages, come on, even Indian tradition is aware of that, try to avoid using "[w]holistic" as a synonym for "uninformed" or "muddle-headed". Giving us an "astrojyoti.com" link as an "example" of the views of "western academics" is just pathetic, come on, that's below you. By "Vedic" you seem to mean Shruti. Get your terminology straight and you'll be fine. dab (𒁳) 10:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, this page on the ISKCON site comes pretty close to the mark on the Shruti/Smriti distinction. (The VedantaSutra is promoted to Shruti only by Vedantins, technically it's only one of the six orthodox philosophies. And 108 Upanishads is definitely overkill: at best the mukhya would qualify, and that too only after Sankaracharya's time). rudra (talk) 11:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

the page correctly refers to "the Vedas and their corollaries sometimes called collectively 'the Vedic scriptures.'" The question is what qualifies as a "corollary to the Vedas". Possibly all of shruti. The statement that "the ISKCON considers 'Vedic scriptures' to include the Bhagavad Gita etc." would still be objective. Just a question of WP:DUE whether and where on the Vedas page this should be noted. A brief note under 'other Vedas' may be arguable. --dab (𒁳) 12:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

More

From the back cover:

“Readers, be of good cheer. To those of you who have surveyed in confusion the trackless path of Indian philosophy, this volume offers hope and respite. You are holding in your hands a reasonable and highly readable account of the particulars of Vedic thought.…Read and find enlightenment.”

— Professor Jerry Clack, Department of Classics, Duquesne University

Please understand, Im not pushing for a veiw that is not-acceptable, I just question the basis of your views, as most of them are not as well sourced as you imagine, even if you look at the articles. Wikidās ॐ 07:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You cited Radhakrishnan and Moore, A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy, in some of your edits. Now would be a good time to read that book. rudra (talk) 09:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

yes, Wikidas. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Read the literature. If you have "initiate" knowledge imparted to you by "guru-shishya tradition", understand that this "knowledge" is your personal spiritual property and has no place on Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, not a florilegium of spiritual wisdom. dab (𒁳) 10:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Man, this wikidas iskcon guy is all mixed up! He doesnt even know what he is talking or debating about! His unfounded and perposterous group ideas are just shocking! Alot of ISKCON people believe what he is saying. Govinda Ramanuja dasa (talk) 09:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

When it comes to the term "vedic" and ISKCON; if you really study their beliefs and principles, you will find out that they do not follow the four Veda (calling them "karma Kanda"), the original main upanishads (calling them "mayavada" philosophy). They are actually an anti-Shruti group. I have even heard scholars say they are actually also an anti-vedantic group.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys, instead of telling me what Wikipedia is not, why don't you read it for yourself. WP:NOT

Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting.

Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals.

Disagreements should be resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures.

I do not have a problem in arriving at consensus and accepting what you are claiming to be one of the versions of academic presentation, as long as you do not turn it into place to hold grudges and import personal conflicts. If at any stage I was in that position, I apologize. Vast majority of Vedic pages completely unreferenced, why don't you make it a little more referenced instead of making a 500 year old tradition into a wikifringe? Wikidās ॐ 21:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

--Wikidās ॐ 21:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, User:Wikidas continues to misrepresent sources to push his POV. In the latest instance User:Ism_schism helpfully dug up the following quote from Gavin Flood on [18]:

Early Vaishnava worship focuses on three deities who become fused together, namely Vasudeva-Krishna, Krishna-Gopala and Narayana, who in turn all become identified with Vishnu. Put simply, Vasudeva-Krishna and Krishna-Gopala were worshiped by groups generally refered to as Bhagavatas, while Narayana was worshipped by the Pancaratra sect.

Instead of actually reading the text (to which Ism schism even provided a link), Wikidas simply used the quote to cite two tangential claims in Swayam bhagavan and Bhagavata. We have seen similar conduct before with him misciting Radhakrishna and Moore (he now says that he does not accept their views) and Winternitz. Any suggestions on how to stop such disruptive behavior ? Abecedare (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you guys want to do? I'll go alot with ANY thing you guys suggest. I think we should have done some thing about this a month ago. We need to do some thing very soon. And, we have to be on guard for situations like this in the future, with people like this.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This book of Gavin D. Flood is perposterous! I have never heard of these claims before in my life. I am going ask some real Hindu pandit and every Hindu that I know what they think of this. And, this wikidas fellow is hypotized by this book. He is using it because it backs his non-sense ideas. I think that Gavin D. flood holds some the same group ideas as wikidas.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the two above posts are clearly WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, I can understand why - he attacks constantly: ([19], [20], [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] Everyone, if he thinks they are ISKCON... and [27] when he finds out they know nothing about our philosophy - he is apologizing... Wikidās ॐ 23:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

GRd, The Flood book is a perfectly good , and often used, source for Hinduism related articles - it is just being used to support some claims it does not make. Also please do not generalize the problem with one user to criticism of ISKCON - the problem is not Wikidas' views or beliefs, but his editing. Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Certainly try to improve my editing. Im learning for the last few months and appreciate constructive critical views. But its spoiled by personal and sectarian attacks. Wikidās ॐ 23:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Please take this criticism on board. The most important thing to remember is that when adding material to Wikipedia (a) make sure you are familiar with exact;y what you are citing - in other words, have the passage before you and paraphrase it as correctly as possible, not in the light of what you believe to be true and (b) remember that your own opinions are one among many. Misrepresentation of sources, in particular, is problematic. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. That is most valuable comment from the whole discussion which was for the most of it counterproductive. Wikidās ॐ 23:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Take the politer interventions above, those that focus on content and quoting, as indications of what the "mainstream" views are, and remember that WP should, and inevitably will, reflect those. You may still have valuable information to add if you keep that in mind at all times, as most of us do when editing material in which we do not share the majority view. --Relata refero (disp.) 00:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Pervasive

I did a random survey of secondary sources added by User:Wikidas on the Svayam bhagavan (which is almost his solo-creation) and the results are detailed here (also see this and this discussion). To summarize:

• The problem of either misrepresenting sources, or adding irrelevant sources seems pervasive.
• It may effect multiple articles including Bhagavata, Vishnu, Krishna, Bhakti, Gaudiya Vaishnavism, Vaishnavism, since the editor has oftencut-and-pasted same content/references to multiple articles.

Note: I am not even commenting on grammar, tone, POV, UNDUE and OR issues since these are relatively easy to correct. Any ideas on how to undo the damage (do we need to remove all references added by user until verified independently), and prevent further disruption in the future ? Abecedare (talk) 06:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have posted my reply on the above. Does it have ANYTHING to do with this board? Wikidās ॐ 06:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply to the above was subsequently deleted by user Abecedare. [28]-Wikidās ॐ 08:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

to be fair, this did turn out to be a case more suited to the WP:RSN. These noticeboards often overlap in scope, and I wonder whether they could be merged beneficially. --dab (𒁳) 10:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Uighurs

Just in case anyone is interested, FACT NEEDED (talk · contribs) is a recent incarnation of the "zealous patriot contributing in broken English" type of account, in this case of an Uighur flavour. Nothing urgent. dab (𒁳) 10:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Will monitor with a loose eye. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 08:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Alan Bond (rocket developer)

An apparently bona fide engineer who has now begun "deciphering" cuneiform texts to find out the truth about Sodom and Gomorrah. dab (𒁳) 10:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

context: [29] "this is totally nuts." But there is a University of Bristol press release, which will make this difficult to keep off WP. dab (𒁳) 10:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It's already in the Sodom and Gomorrah article put there by another editor, but I've placed the claim in context a couple of weeks ago, it's something I'd be following anyway - it is nonsense, as you know. Their book, interestingly enough, seems to be self-published. But thanks for bringing it up as the Alan Bond article needs some attention now as someone has added it there.--Doug Weller (talk) 11:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Robert F. Kennedy assassination

I am concerned that this article has become bloated with original research, unverified information and outright conspiracy theories. Do we have any volunteers who would like to review this article and help improve it? Jehochman ^Talk 18:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it during my lunch break at work tomorrow Fritzpoll (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This article has now been substantially updated, but needs more eyes in it to examine if the extent of my correction is sufficient, or was too severe. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Armenian update

Ararat arev doesn't give up. What a loser. The time he invested into wasting ours could have gone into building an extensive website of his own by now. Armenian "antiquity frenzy" tidbits keep turning up all over the place. Recent finds include

• Category:Ancient peoples of Armenia (Oodians, Amazons(!), ...)
• Category:Hayasa (Hittite-Hayasa War - redirected)

And on the Ararat arev front, some evidence our extensive semi-protections are working! Moreschi (talk) (debate) 10:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Categories

btw, why is there a category Category:Greek mythological Amazons and why is it in Category:Eurasian nomads? Creating new categories is far too easy, and we have tons of useless or worse categories nobody ever noticed. We need an efficient approach to deleting and merging such. dab (𒁳) 08:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Strongly agree. Relata and I have just been dragged through a particularly pointless dispute on 1066 Granada massacre where some editors were trying add the article to the [[Category:Islam and antisemitism]] as a form of POV-pushing. People feel free to act in this way because there is no requirement for a good source to justify the addition of an article to a category. What sort of efficient approach did you have in mind? Itsmejudith (talk) 08:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the "debate" there was about the removal of that category, which had been added long before. It got confused by three factors: a meta-debate on whether the category itself was sensible (or needed redefinition); how in fact the existing criteria were being applied; and the participation of known long-term disruptive editors. rudra (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

the problem is, how to get rid of a category once it has been created? It is tedious to speedily delete a category: All articles in it need to be recategorized. I am not sure if it is considered good practice to just redirect a category. This is for pointless categories. Undue categorization of articles within bona fide categories is another matter. I am not sure if we need a Category:Islam and antisemitism, but if we do, inclusion criteria need to be strict. Category:LGBT people has a similar history of disputed inclusions. Generally speaking, inclusion of an article in a category that isn't backed up by explicit justification in the article body should be reverted. dab (𒁳) 10:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

We also have a Category:Anti-Islam sentiment. What joys!

As regards speedy deletions of categories, I think User:Cydebot is supposed to remove deleted categories from articles, but that works off CFD and may not cover categories that have been zipped without a CSD. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 10:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Category:Anti-Islam sentiment is really Category:Islamophobia. I found this out on the talk page, and got agreement on a somewhat better wording for the category page to clarify that they are one and the same (here on WP, that is). rudra (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

re "Greek mythological Amazons", I seem to have traced the idea that there were any non-"Greek mythological" Amazons (which would necessitate the distinction) to Doug Coldwell (talk · contribs) -- no doubt an excellent editor who in 2007 worked on the topic [30], see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megullia Dotata. dab (𒁳) 14:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia will never be free until the last Categoriser is strangled with the entrails of the last Infoboxer". --Folantin (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we rename Category:Greek mythological Amazons to Category:Amazons and then articles on characters appearing in Boccacio's works (which could well be notable given B's cultural significance) could go in it alongside the Greek mythical ones and any other Amazons who crop up from time to time. The category will need a lot of policing since we don't want to include the likes of Hillary Clinton simply because some journalist reached for the cliche. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

In response to Folantin's imagery, yuck. And we do have characters like Wonder Woman who could probably be called "Amazons" to be added. I remember there's also some speculation somewhere that Amazons may have been based on an African tribe which I read in I think Flash for Freedom!, but I don't remember the details right now. John Carter (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Folantin, I will report you for violation of WP:CIVIL! How dare you! dab (𒁳) 16:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

oh, I had understood "Greek mythological Amazons" to contrast with "historical (Scythian) Amazons", not with "metaphorical or pop-culture Amazons". For the latter, we have Category:Fictional women soldiers and warriors.

(sob), I just saw list of fictional Amazons. This is so sad. Btw, would the correct plural be "women soldiers" or just "woman soldiers"? My appositions senses are tingling. dab (𒁳) 16:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

John's Flashman reference is to the so-called Dahomey Amazons, the actual, historical all-female bodyguard of the kings of Dahomey. --Folantin (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

More Amazons

ok, there appear to be a large number of {{inuniverse}} references to Amazons from Roman historiography. For two years(!) we claimed that Eurypyle "was the leader of an all female expedition against Babylonia. She captured the Amorite capital in 1760 B.C.E."[31], which was linked from Timeline of women in ancient warfare since its inception in Nov 2006[32]. This is appalling! The "source" we seem to be indebted to for this is Salmonson, Jessica Amanda (1991). The Encyclopedia of Amazons. Paragon House. ISBN 1-55778-420-5.. This work is cited in dozens of other articles[33]. This Amazon stuff has passed under the radar for too long and needs serious investigation. dab (𒁳) 08:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

UN Security Council Resolutions: Are they binding or not?

I was wondering if I could get your take on whether UNSC resolutions should be described as binding or non-binding if the aren't taken under Chapter 7 of the UN charter? They are currently described as somewhat non-binding however this contradicts what the UN itself would tell you if you went on a tour of the UN. This originally came to my attention when I saw some changes made to United Nations Security Council Resolution 497 initially the changes described the resolution non-binding because it was not done under chapter 7 of the UN charter. I had reverted this change in that it was unsourced and this was in turn unreverted and an additional section was added as to who believes it to be binding versus who believes it to be non-binding. The way the article stands right now is that it merely states that the resolution wasn't done under binding Chapter 7 of the UN charter. You'll notice on the talk page that I expressed concerns about suggesting that UNSC resolutions are non-binding when the International Court of Justice says that they are binding however the response I received was that the ICJ opinion itself was non binding. Also if you look at UN_Security_Council#Resolutions it says all the above that was added to the UNSC 497 article. Another concern is that the article might be cherry picking scholars or politicians who claim that UNSC resolutions not done under Chapter 7 are non-binding. I posted a concern about using the opinion of Erika De Wet when there is no article about her in Wikipedia so she might not even be notable however I was told here that she is notable. I post the above as much for my own understanding as well as getting accuracy in these articles. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Also, see an excellent comment by an anon on the UNSC 497 talk page. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's what some reliable sources say on the matter:

Long list of sources
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Some analysts have pointed out that Security Council resolutions condemning or criticizing Israel have been passed under Chapter VI of the U.N. Charter, which are different from the Chapter VII resolutions against Iraq." Ayoob, Mohammad. "The war against Iraq: normative and strategic implications", in Robinson, Mary & Weiss, Thomas G. & Crahan, Margaret E. & Goering, John (eds). Wars on Terrorism and Iraq: human rights, unilateralism, and U.S. foreign policy, Routledge (UK), May 1, 2004, p. 164. "Additionally it may be noted that the Security Council cannot adopt binding decisions under Chapter VI of the Charter." De Hoogh, Andre. Obligations Erga Omnes and International Crimes, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Jan 1, 1996, p. 371. "Council recommendations under Chapter VI are generally accepted as not being legally binding." Magliveras, Konstantinos D. Exclusion from Participation in International Organisations, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Jan 1, 1999, p. 113. "Within the framework of Chapter VI the SC has at its disposal an 'escalation ladder' composed of several 'rungs' of wielding influence on the conflicting parties in order to move them toward a pacific solution... however, the pressure exerted by the Council in the context of this Chapter is restricted to non-binding recommendations." Neuhold, Hanspeter. "The United Nations System for the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes", in Cede, Franz & Sucharipa-Behrmann, Lilly. The United Nations, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Jan 1, 2001, p. 66. "The responsibility of the Council with regard to international peace and security is specified in Chapters VI and VII. Chapter VI, entitled 'Pacific Settlements of Disputes', provides for action by the Council in case of international disputes or situations which do not (yet) post a threat to international peace and security. Herein its powers generally confined to making recommendations, the Council can generally not issue binding decisions under Chapter VI." Schweigman, David. The Authority of the Security Council Under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Jan 1, 2001, p. 33. "Under Chapter VI, the Security Council may only make recommendations but not binding decisions on United Nations members". Wallace-Bruce, Nii Lante. The Settlement of International Disputes, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Jan 1, 1998, pp. 47-48. "First, it may issue non-binding resolutions under Chapter VI of the Charter expressing its opinion on the abuses and their resolution." Mertus, Julie. The United Nations And Human Rights: A Guide For A New Era, Routledge, 2005, ISBN 0415343380, p. 120. "Under Chapter VI the Security Council can only make non-binding recommendations. However, if the Security Council determines that the continuance of the dispute constitutes a threat to the peace, or that the situation involves a breach of the peace or act of aggression it can take action under Chapter VII of the Charter. Chapter VII gives the Security Council the power to make decisions which are binding on member states, once it has determined the existence of a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression." Hillier, Timothy, Taylor & Francis Group. Sourcebook on Public International Law, Cavendish Publishing, ISBN 1843143801, 1998, p. 568. "Nor is the disenchanting performance due to the fact that under Chapter VI the SC may only address non-binding resolutions to the conflicting parties." Cede, Franz, and Sucharipa-Behrmann, Lilly. The United Nations: Law and Practice, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2001, ISBN 9041115633, p. 70. "This clause does not apply to decisions under Chapter VII (including the use of armed force), which are binding on all member states (unlike those adopted under Chapter VI which are of a non-binding nature)." Köchler, Hans. The Concept of Humanitarian Intervention in the Context of Modern Power, International Progress Organization, 2001, ISBN 3900704201, p. 21. "The impact of these flaws inherent to Resolution 731 (1992) was softened by the fact that it was a non-binding resolution in terms of Chapter VI of the Charter. Consquently Libya was not bound to give effect to it. However, the situation was different with respect to Resolution 748 of 31 March 1992, as it was adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter." De Wet, Erika, "The Security Council as a Law Maker: The Adopion of (Quasi)-Judicial Decisions", in Wolfrum, Rüdiger and Röben, Volker. Developments of International Law in Treaty Making, Springer, 2005, ISBN 3540252991, p. 203. "There are two limitations on the Security Council when it is acting under Chapter VI. Firstly, recommendations of the Council under Chapter VI are not binding on states." Werksman, Jacob. Greening International Institutions, Earthscan, 1996, ISBN 1853832448, p. 14. "Chapter VI exhorts members to settle such claims peacefully and submit them for mediation and arbitration to the United Nations. Chapter VI, however, is not binding - in other owrds, there is no power to compel states to submit their disputes for arbitration or mediation by the United Nations." Matthews, Ken. The Gulf Conflict and International Relations, Routledge, 1993, ISBN 041507519X, p. 130. "One final point must be noted in connection with Chapter VI, and that is that the powers of the Security Council are to make "recommendations." These are not binding on the states to whom they are addressed, for Article 25 relates only to "decisions." Philippe Sands, Pierre Klein, D. W. Bowett. Bowett's Law of International Institutions, Sweet & Maxwell, 2001, ISBN 042153690X, p. 46. "Article 2, para. 6, must be linked, first of all, to the use of these kinds of pressure that have no mandatory effect. Both the General Assembly and the Council have the power to make recommendations to the States, that is, resolutions that do not bind the States (see section 89)). Worthy of mention from this point of view are the provisions of Article 11, para. 2 ("The General Assembly may discuss any questions relating to the maintenance of international peace and security... and... may make recommendations with regard to any such question to the State or States concerned") and the various provisions of Chapter VI, particularly Article 33, para. 2, Article 36, and Article 37, para. 2, which give the Security Council the power to recommend settlement of disputes likely to endanger the peace." Conforti, Benedetto. The Law and Practice of the United Nations, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005, ISBN 9004143084, p. 127. "...the primary authority of the Security Council is defined in terms of international peace and security. The Council's jurisdiction under Chapter VI—which give it recommendatory but not binding authority—is stated in very broad terms." Matheson, Michael J. Council UNbound: The Growth of UN Decision Making on Conflict and Postconflict Issues after the Cold War, US Institute of Peace Press, 2006, ISBN 1929223781, p. 42. "After much lobbying, the Council agreed on a resolution intended to "assist the parties to achieve a just, lasting and mutually acceptable political solution" that would provide for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara. But the preamble went on to specify that the Council was "acting under Chapter VI of the Charter of the United Nations." In short, this remained an exercise of good offices, not binding arbitration subject to enforcement." Jensen, Erik. Western Sahara: Anatomy of a Stalemate, Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2005, ISBN 1588263053, p. 112. "Thus decisions under Chapter VI, for example, to recommend terms of settlement are not binding, and even decisions under Article 40 of Chapter VII may not be." Political science quarterly, v. 90 (1975-76), Academy of Political Science, Columbia University, p. 147. "The UN distinguishes between two sorts of Security Council resolution. Those passed under Chapter Six deal with the peaceful resolution of disputes and entitle the council to make non-binding recommendations. Those under Chapter Seven give the council broad powers to take action, including warlike action, to deal with “threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression”. Such resolutions, binding on all UN members, were rare during the cold war. But they were used against Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait. None of the resolutions relating to the Israeli-Arab conflict comes under Chapter Seven." Iraq, Israel and the United Nations: Double standards?, The Economist, October 10, 2002. "There are two sorts of security council resolution: those under 'chapter 6' are non-binding recommendations dealing with the peaceful resolution of disputes; those under 'chapter 7' give the council broad powers, including war, to deal with 'threats to the peace ... or acts of aggression'." Emmott, Bill. If Saddam steps out of line we must go straight to war, The Guardian, November 25, 2002. "...there is a difference between the Security Council resolutions that Israel breaches (nonbinding recommendations under Chapter 6) and those Iraq broke (enforcement actions under Chapter 7)." Kristof, Nicholas D. Calling the Kettle Black, The New York Times, February 25, 2004. "There is a hierarchy of resolutions... Chapter 6, under which all resolutions relating to the middle east have been issued, relates to the pacific resolution of disputes. Above that, there are the mandatory chapter 7 resolutions, which impose the clearest possible obligations, usually on a single state rather than on two or three states, which is what chapter 6 is there for. Chapter 7 imposes mandatory obligations on states that are completely out of line with international law and policy, and the United Nations has decided in its charter that the failure to meet those obligations may be met by the use of force." Straw, Jack. House of Commons debates, Hansard, Column 32, September 24, 2002. "There is another characteristic of these resolutions which deserves a mention, and that is that they are under chapter 7 of the United Nations charter. Chapter 7 has as its heading 'Action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression'. This is the very serious chapter of United Nations rules, regulations, laws and principles, which the United Nations activates when they intend to do something about it. If the United Nations announces under chapter 7 that it intends to do something about a matter and it is not done, that will undermine the authority of the United Nations; that will render it ineffective. There are many other resolutions under other chapters. Resolution 242 gets a bit of a guernsey here every now and then. Resolution 242 is under chapter 6, not chapter 7. It does not carry the same mandate and authority that chapter 7 carries. Chapter 6 is the United Nations trying to put up resolutions which might help the process of peace and it states matters of principle that are important for the world to take into consideration. Resolution 242 says that Israel should withdraw from territories that it has occupied. It also says that Israel should withdraw to secure and recognised boundaries and that the one is dependent upon the other. Resolution 242 says that, but it is not a chapter 7 resolution." Beazley, Kim, Waiting for blow-back (speech delivered in Parliament on February 4, 2003, The Sydney Morning Herald, February 5, 2003. "There are several types of resolutions: Chapter 6 resolutions are decisions pursing the Pacific Settlement of Disputes, and put forward Council proposals on negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies, and other peaceful means. Chapter 7 resolutions are decisions for Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, involving use of force and sanctions, complete or partial interruption of economic relations, rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic radio and other means of communication and the severance of diplomatic relations. Resolutions passed under Chapter 7 of the Charter are binding on all UN members, who are required to give every assistance to any action taken by the Council, and refrain from giving any assistance to the country against which it is taking enforcement action." Iran dossier crosses the Atlantic: Where to from here? (Microsoft Word document), Greenpeace position paper on Iran. "The International Court of Justice took the position in the Namibia Advisory Opinion that Art. 25 of the Charter, according to which decisions of the Security Council have to be carried out, does not only apply in relation to chapter VII. Rather, the court is of the opinion that the language of a resolution should be carefully analyzed before a conclusion can be drawn as to its binding effect. The Court even seems to assume that Art. 25 may have given special powers to the Security Council. The Court speaks of "the powers under Art. 25". It is very doubtful, however, whether this position can be upheld. As Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice has pointed out in his dissenting opinion: "If, under the relevant chapter or article of the Charter, the decision is not binding, Article [69/70] 25 cannot make it so. If the effect of that Article were automatically to make al decisions of the Security Council binding, then the words 'in accordance with the present Charter' would be quite superfluous". In practice the Security Council does not act on the understanding that its decisions outside chapter VII are binding on the States concerned. Indeed, as the wording of chapter VI clearly shows, non-binding recommendations are the general rule here." Frowein, Jochen Abr. Völkerrecht - Menschenrechte - Verfassungsfragen Deutschlands und Europas, Springer, 2004, ISBN 3540230238, p. 58. "Allowing the Security Council to adopt binding measures under Chapter VI would undermine the structural division of competencies foreseen by Chapters VI and VII, respectively. The whole aim of separating these chapters is to distinguish between voluntary and binding measures. Whereas the pacific settlement of disputes provided by the former is underpinned by the consent of the parties, binding measures in terms of Chapter VII are characterised by the absence of such consent. A further indication of the non-binding nature of measures taken in terms of Chapter VI is the obligation on members of the Security Council who are parties to a dispute, to refrain from voting when resolutions under Chapter VI are adopted. No similar obligation exists with respect to binding resolutions adopted under Chapter VII... If one applies this reasoning to the Nambia opinion, the decisive point is that none of the Articles under Chapter VI facilitate the adoption of the type of binding measures that were adopted by the Security Council in Resolution 276(1970)... Resolution 260(1970) was indeed adopted in terms of Chapter VII, even though the ICJ went to some length to give the opposite impression." De Wet, Erika. The Chapter VII Powers of the United Nations Security Council, Hart Publishing, 2004, ISBN 1841134228, pp. 39-40.

Hope that's helpful. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. What exactly is the fringe theory here? That UN resolutions not under Chapter 7 are (or can be) binding? rudra (talk) 04:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If UNSC resolutions not under chapter 7 should be called non-binding resolutions in wikipedia articles even when the resolution itself makes no mention as to whether its binding or not. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This makes no sense. How many UN resolutions schoolmasterishly declare "this is (not) binding" about themselves? The fact of the matter is that in the practically certain absence of any such explicit statement this is simply a matter of definition. Chapter 7? Binding. Other? Not binding. Period. I'm getting the impression that the real argument here is something on the lines of "pointing out that a Chapter [not 7] resolution is not binding is WP:SYNTH", and that too in support of a POV that would be only too happy to have uninformed readers fall into the trap of assuming, on the basis of the prestige of the UN, that a resolution is binding when it isn't. rudra (talk) 04:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(RE: SYNTH) Yes, that is what I meant. Also, if you take a tour of the UN, the tourguide will tell you that GA resolutions are non-binding and SC resolutions are binding. Furthermore, usually when you read about the passing of a UN resolution in the press, if it was a GA resolution the press will tell you that it was non-binding but if it's an SC (say not chapter 7) resolution they generally won't make a statement as to whether it was binding or not. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, last I heard, tour guides don't trump the UN Charter. As far as I can see, "Only Chapter 7 resolutions are binding" is not WP:SYNTH, it's a statement of fact. The same goes for "Chapter N resolutions are not binding", for all admissible values of N except 7. rudra (talk) 05:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I read remember reading through the entire charter on wikisource and I didn't see anything about non-Chapter 7 resolutions being non-binding. Are we using the wikipedia definition of Non-binding resolution? Also, am I to take it that whenever we see a non-chapter 7 resolution in an article in wikipedia we should mention that the resolution was not done under chapter 7 so it's non-binding? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point here, as nowhere in the Charter is it said that Chapter 7 resolutions are binding. The issue is one of international law, and it has been decided by the experts: only Chapter 7 resolutions have binding force. So on the must/should/may scale, the correct advice would seem to be "may" rather than "should". rudra (talk) 01:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me if I'm not picking this up quickly enough but I can't understand why it's clearly decided by experts to be non binding when the International Court of Justice says that UNSC resolutions are binding. The ICJ should trump the experts above, no? Or at least indicate that there's no consensus on the issue? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

What the ICJ says doesn't change the way the UN works. I'd suggest going by what the experts say about the Namibia Advisory (because the ICJ doesn't have powers of judicial review, and as a matter of fact has said so. The ICJ was asked for and gave an opinion on specific resolutions). rudra (talk) 02:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Rudra, can you explain your position a little more fully – if Pocopocopocopoco is correct that most press sources don't describe the resolutions in question as non-binding, and if other sources (the ICJ, the UN itself) consider them to be binding while still other sources (those Jayjg cites) consider them to be nonbinding, then why would Wikipedia step in and resolve the question? Wouldn't NPOV require that it not do this?--G-Dett (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Are tour guides or the press experts on international law? As for the ICJ, it advanced a theory that Art.25 could be applied: it was a theory to support their non-binding opinion on a specific resolution, not a definitive statement of how the UN actually works. See the version linked by Pocopocopocopoco above, esp footnote 3, the quote of Frowein ending with: In practice the Security Council does not act on the understanding that its decisions outside chapter VII are binding on the States concerned. Indeed, as the wording of chapter VI clearly shows, non-binding recommendations are the general rule here. I'm not sure NPOV requires a "balancing" of popular myths (e.g. "astrology works!") with the weight of expert opinion. rudra (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hold on, Rudra. Frowein's was the dissenting opinion. Whatever may be said of this analogy of yours – whereby the majority finding of the International Court of Justice is likened to a "popular opinion" (such as the proposition that "astrology works"), whereas the dissenting position is presented as "expert opinion" – it does not constitute a plausible approach to NPOV. Now, Jayjg is correct that Erika De Wet is an excellent source on this question, and he is correct that she comes down on the side that only Chapter VII resolutions are binding. But here's what Jay leaves out and you overlook: De Wet presents this as a vexed question about which there is significant dispute from excellent sources. She cites the work of several such expert sources, including Rosalyn Higgins, Wilhelm Kewenig, and Olivier Lissitzyn, discusses the complexities at length, and carefully lays out the groundwork for her own position. She is a very good scholar, but to argue that Wikipedia should simply adopt her position as settled fact is preposterous; she doesn't even present it that way.

I hope that part of the NPOV problem is clearer now. But there's another major NPOV problem, that of poisoning the well. Here's the passage of the Wikipedia article that's aroused dispute:

This Security Council Resolution was not taken under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Resolutions made under Chapter VI have no enforcement mechanisms and are generally considered to have no binding force under international law.[1] The International Court of Justice (ICJ), however, has asserted that all UN Security Council resolutions are legally binding,[2] in its 1971 Namibia non-binding advisory opinion. This assertion by the ICJ has been countered by Erika De Wet and others....In practice, the Security Council does not consider its decisions outside Chapter VII to be binding.[3]

Footnote 1 consists of a whole mess of cherry-picked sources, only some of which address Namibia. The NPOV and NOR violations are obvious. The bolded sentence which follows is rank POV-pushing, too cute by half and too sarky by 3/4 for encyclopedic prose. The subsequent sentence reads, "This assertion by the ICJ has been countered by Erika De Wet and others" – yes, and it's been supported by still other scholars, whom De Wet is good enough to acknowledge as serious even as you guys dismiss them as astrologists. The claim in the final sentence, presented here as fact, is cited to the dissenting opinion. That's right, the majority opinion of the ICJ is presented as an "assertion," with extra well-poisoning by way of "non-binding," while the dissenting opinion is presented as settled fact. Way to write a serious and neutral encyclopedia, guys.--G-Dett (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, what a surprise to find you have followed me here. Your statement is interesting, but incorrect in a number of important ways. To begin with, 26 sources isn't "cherry-picking", it's the majority view. In addition, it's not Frowein who was the dissenting opinion, it was Fitzmaurice. More importantly, whether or not there is a debate about amongst legal scholars about whether Chapter VI resolutions should be binding, as a matter of customary international law Chapter VI resolutions are treated as non-binding. That is why so many legal scholars state this as a matter of fact, not an article of debate. Yes, the ICJ did, in 1971, attempt to extend the binding nature of Chapter VII resolutions to Chapter VI resolutions - but that attempt failed, and, as De Wet points out, even Namibia was, in practice, adopted in terms of Chapter VII. NPOV is quite fully satisfied as regards customary international law; if the legal scholars who would like to make Chapter VI resolutions binding ever do get their way, then your arguments would carry more weight. If and until that happens, Chapter VI resolutions are still not binding. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Jay, you're blowing smoke and begging the question; the point (De Wet's point and mine) is not that legal scholars "would like to make Chapter VI resolutions binding," it's that they claim they are binding. That issue is disputed; De Wet acknowledges the dispute, and the ambiguities giving rise to it, even if you don't. Now, explain exactly (a) how you've arrived at your understanding that the position you support is the "majority view"; and (b) why we should present the "majority view" as if it were settled fact when it's actually disputed by many scholars. Then, explain (c) your opposition to an application of this "majority view" standard to the settlements' illegality under international law.--G-Dett (talk) 16:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)I wonder if all of this stems from different definitions of what constitutes a Non-binding resolution. If you look at the wikiarticle for non-binding resolution it defines it as a resolution that cannot pass into law. However, if you look at some discussion that I had with Rudra on his talk page, His understanding is that '"Binding" generally means "UN members are obliged to enforce"'. I wonder if non-chapter 7 resolutions might actually fall under international law but the members are not obliged to enforce them. So in the example above, Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights is illegal under international law due to UNSC 497 however since UNSC 497 was not under chapter 7, the members of the UNSC are not obliged to enforce UNSC 497. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The origins of the Hyksos - more Ararat arev

I've just realised as I started to create a new section that this looks like another problem with Ararat arev. Using several IP addresses he's added something to The origins of the Hyksos -- which looks like nonsense to me. Look at the edit history (where he is warring with someone else) and my comments on the talk page. He's non-responsive to my edit summaries but now I understand why. Can the page be semi-protected in some way? I'm not sure what to do with a disruptive editor like this. Thanks.

Sigh...semiprotected. I don't understand this loony, I really don't. We nail him time and time over and he still doesn't give up. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 09:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that was fast. The hardest people to deal with are those who are clueless about the subject. We've got a guy on megaliths who thinks Barry Fell was a geologist who used linguistic experts to decipher languages and that some sort of experts should study megaliths for 'imprints' which will reveal all about their ritual uses before excavations. He clearly has no clue at all, doesn't do any research, and you just can't have a discussion with people like that.Doug Weller (talk) 09:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ach. There are currently Armenian-antiquity-related edit wars breaking out on Urartu and Hayasa-Azzi, due in no small part to Ararat arev's prior contributions, which our other non-banned Armenian users have picked up on. This needs some attention. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 23:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

For one thing, the "History of Armenia" infoboxes will have to go. rudra (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Now also edit-warring on Nairi. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 23:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Good grief, 37 edits amounting to this, followed by this. That entire section of "Prehistoric Armenia" (an oxymoron) needs to be excised from that infobox. rudra (talk) 02:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Rudra, look at the History of Iran template! (here -> Template:History_of_Iran) It is from around 4000 BC in their template! Hah!. They have a long list of the cultures, tribes in ancient Iran there, before they arrived, starting from Proto-Elamite civilization in 3200 BC, yes in their template!. Are you saying Persians claim they are that much older? Persian kingdom (Persians) started from 600 BC too, they are putting their ancient history in their template, yes in their template, and you are removing ours. We have our long list of tribes and cultures in Armenia as well, starting from Neolithic, if you read in the History of Armenia section, and than Kuro-Araxes_culture, etc etc...

This is what it says-> "The history of Armenia begins with Neolithic cultures of the South Caucasus, such as the Shulaveri-Shomu culture, followed by the Bronze Age Kura-Araxes and Trialeti cultures." Where is this in our History of Armenia template? Why should History of Iran template have theirs and not us to have ours?? 75.51.172.124 (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, the old WP:OTHERCRAP argument. Nice try. No dice. rudra (talk) 15:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The Armenian topics navbox isn't any better, as "Hayasa", "Nairi" and "Urartu" are listed under "Armenian History". Nicklausse (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

What on earth is going on? Someone now claims that the long extinct c.3400 to c.2000 BC Kura-Araxes culture was Armenian by placing the "History of Armenia tag" on it. So, Armenians are 4000 to 5400 years old? Is this what Ararat Arev's POV ideas are all about? (I reverted the edit but wonder how long this will last!) As Dbachman rightly states in this article's discussion pages: "Combining the "Armenians" and the "Kura-Araxes culture" entries in the EIEC into a hodge-podge falls under WP:SYN." It's OK to say that Kura-Araxes plays a role in the Armenian hypothesis of their origin but not right, in my view, to then place a deeply intrusive "History of Armenia" tag on this article since an Armenian link to the long gone Kura-Araxes culture CAN'T be proven. What will Ararat Arev's backers claim next? That Adam and Eve were Armenian? This is getting a tad ridiculous! The problem lies partly with the broad and highly intrusive "History of Armenia" tag which places Hayasa-Azzi, Nairi and Urartu within it when their respective link to Armenia is either unclear (for Urartu) or non-existent for Hayasa-Azzi. I prefer Dbachman's approach--that they play a role in the Armenian hypothesis instead of just pushing the "History of Armenia" tag on these 3 articles. Its more intellectually honest. Artene50 (talk) 06:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Mondo MOND madness

Modified Newtonian dynamics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The current version could be a poster child for the presentation of fringe topics as mainstream alternatives. The eyes and opinions of some physics-savvy people would be appreciated. Vassyana (talk) 09:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that MOND is a mainstream alternative, in the sense of being a serious, falsifiable theory, albeit one with few adherents and serious flaws. Am I wrong? <eleland/talkedits> 00:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The argument right now is how falsified MOND is with most astrophysicists "in the know" declaring it to be falsified by a number of different observations. The current state of the idea is marginalized but tolerated. More interesting are modified gravity theories to explain dark energy (like DGP models). ScienceApologist (talk) 06:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It is my understanding that MOND is fringe in the sense that it lies on the fringes of acceptable science and that it is only held by a very small minority of professionals. Am I incorrect in my knowledge? Vassyana (talk) 06:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The biggest problem with MOND is that the authors of the idea seem impervious to others' falsifications of the idea. This is a rather old story, as it were. Remember polywater and N-rays not to mention steady state universe and caloric theory? Whenever a theory gets falsified, there are often supporters waiting in the wings who will bend over backwards and attach bells-and-whistles to try to explain away fundamental contradictions to the point where the final modified theory is either so esoteric as to be almost absurd or is essentially identical to standard theory. At this point, the "tensor" modifications to MOND are so grandiose that any "simplicity" the theory originally could claim is lost in its awkward new packaging. And things like the bullet cluster and large-scale structure of the universe studies don't seem to cooperate with the simplest MOND models one comes up with. Nevertheless, two different "MOND" groups continue to churn out archive papers on a weekly basis attempting to stop all the holes in the dike. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, MOND gets a decent amount of Physics press, I think it's best considered minority science for now, with a bit of questionable, but not much more (to an outsider) than all the other alternatives (e.g. String theory, supersymmetry, etc). Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

MOND has problems beyond string theory and supersymmetry of having observational evidence that many have stated explicitly falsifies it. Outside of New Scientist, I don't think there's much notice of it. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

And PPARC. The article probably gives it a lot of undue weight but it is marginal science, not pseudoscience. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. It is fringe science in the sense of being on the boundaries of science, not in the sense of being pseudoscience. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Laz

Kolkhianboy (talk · contribs), previously a bunch of quite disruptive IPs until I semiprotected all of his favourite articles, is a displaying some worrying tendencies towards ethnic chauvinism of a Laz variety. Laz language has also been affected, possibly others. Nothing massively urgent but something that needs monitoring. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Atlas Orthogonal Chiropractic Technique

Written from an in-universe (in chiropractic) perspective.Itsmejudith (talk) 14:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. Another NPOV-free zone. I've cut all the fluff down to a one-sentence stub. Someone who doesn't have a conflict of interest (as I suspect recent authors of having) might like to rebuild. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 09:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Neat solution, thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, assuming this technique is actually notable in the first place? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 10:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I tagged it for merger with Chiropractic. I also noted that the first version of the article has copyvio written all over it.Itsmejudith (talk) 11:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

AIDS reappraisal redux

I'd like to once again request some additional input at AIDS reappraisal and perhaps some additional eyes on zidovudine as well. A number of recurrent issues have flared up, including whether AIDS denialism is opposed by "the scientific community", or simply "a majority of the scientific community". To avoid this becoming a two-person back-and-forth, I'd like to invite outside input. There are multiple active threads at Talk:AIDS reappraisal started in the past few days. MastCell ^Talk 18:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I think "scientific community" is fine. This is surely even more obvious than homeopathy. It's Number 46, part 1. Speaking as Mr Joe Public, I couldn't name one AIDS denialist, but then why should I memorise the names of cranks? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Input requested at Dysgenics

There is an RfC currently open at Dysgenics, asking whether the article in question devotes too much space to a WP:FRINGE subject. A wider input would be appreciated at the RfC. Thanks!--Ramdrake (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This is part of the whole Race and intelligence shebang, starring Jagz (talk · contribs) and Zero g (talk · contribs) in the main roles. I think I mostly get what's going on here, but would someone mind explaining for me in very simple English what the whole debate's about, just to make sure I fully understand the whole picture? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can explain, they are positing that dysgenics has to do with the anti-eugenic effect of a higher comparative fertility rate of low-IQ people (in the USA, typically non-Whites) vs high-IQ people, therefore eventually bringing about a dumbing-down of humanity over the long term, and even the demise of civilisation. This fails to take into account that:

1. IQ scores as a rule have been increasing since we started measuring them 50-100 years ago (instead of decreasing)
2. dysgenics is a real medical term used for the study of mutations which deleteriously affect the survival of the organism.
3. This hypothesis is forwarded by a very small group of researchers, basically a subgroup of the staunchest hereditarian researchers mentioned in the Race and Intelligence article, foremost among them being JP Rushton himself.

Hope it helps.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Particular attribution at parapsychology

What do you think? Is it only a few people who think that parapsychology is a pseudoscience? Certain people at Talk:Parapsychology are convinced of this and are not backing down. They reminded me of a proposal I made a while back to add a section to WP:FRINGE about particular attribution. So I was bold and tried out some wording. More eyes are needed both there and at WT:FRINGE#Appeal to particular attribution. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

http://phoenicia.org as a source

This website is used in quite a few articles. It's a personal website although with articles by other authors, arguing for Phoenicians in Brazil, Australia, etc (and of course they come from Atlantis). It also calls itself the "Virtual Center for Phoenician Studies" and "Encyclopedia Phoeniciana". I'm trying to do some cleanup. It seems used quite a bit in Carthage for instance. --Doug Weller (talk) 11:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience and alternative science

I have asked ArbCom to endorse discretionary sanctions in pseudoscience and alternative science topics, broadly construed. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_to_amend:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FPseudoscience_and_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FMartinphi-ScienceApologist.. Vassyana (talk) 12:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)